Eastern Europe is NOT under-represented

[ComradeGeneral]

If you had read the SECOND POST of the first page you would have read someone already saying that... now this thread's become about whether Poland should be in the game or not. And trust me: I'm (quarter, I guess) Serb, and Serbia definately shouldn't be in.

The second post merely makes fun of the guy that started this topic. And I was just mentioning some countries.

 

[pengoyo]

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

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

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

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



This is Eastern Europe if you wanted to know.



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

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



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

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

Your map of what MODERN day countries are represent is only correct depending on what you take the civilization to represent.

Russia can represent Russia but also Belarus and Ukraine for Kievian Russia was located is Ukraine. And all this area was culturally was considered Russia and it was not until nationalism when people started to use language to determine people ethnicity that they truly stop being Russians.

Macedonia is represented in the game along with Cyprus because these are all Hellenistic states or “Greek” states and Alexander the Great himself was from Macedonia.

Austria and Luxembourg are in the game through Germany for the people who make up these countries are German and speak German and only reason they are not part of Germany is because they where not conquered by Prussia. Switzerland is also included for it has the same ethnicities as the people who surround them who are also included

Holy Roman Empire included both Poland and Czech Republic it just that these two left the HRE early.

Even the Baltic countries (which are not Slavic but there own ethnic group) are represented by Fredrick of Prussia. Prussian are Baltic not Germans.

Also the Celts themselves controlled a large portion of Eastern Europe

Even though I would rather have Poland then HRE, because Poland had at on time the largest empire in Europe. You just have to live with what you get and personally Europe is already overly represented compared to the rest of the world in this game.

Also Eastern Europe can include a variety of countries because there are a variety of accepted definitions.

 

[pengoyo]

Also you could claim Romania is represented, in a very long shot, Because Italy is represented even though there is no Italian civilization just the Roman who fathered the romance languages which include Romania. Rome is very different from Italy. Latin is not even a Romance laguage.

 

[onedreamer]

Austria-Hungary won't likely happen. Fireaxis isn't a fan of doing things like that.

as for number 1. The term Central European died of in WWII.

Just because YOU say so or Mr. None who wrote it in the Wiki it doesn't make it true. In Italy Central Europe is used all the darn time, as well as in the whole Europe, starting from the Time Zones.

 

[TheLastOne36]

First of all the map isn't 100% correct i know that, i quickly did that in paint!

Russia can represent Russia but also Belarus and Ukraine for Kievian Russia was located is Ukraine. And all this area was culturally was considered Russia and it was not until nationalism when people started to use language to determine people ethnicity that they truly stop being Russians.

I could make an argument but it's not a big deal.

Macedonia is represented in the game along with Cyprus because these are all Hellenistic states or “Greek” states and Alexander the Great himself was from Macedonia.

It could, your right.

Austria and Luxembourg are in the game through Germany for the people who make up these countries are German and speak German and only reason they are not part of Germany is because they where not conquered by Prussia. Switzerland is also included for it has the same ethnicities as the people who surround them who are also included

I don't think fireaxis thinks like that. Why would there be a Holy Roman Empire in the game then?

Holy Roman Empire included both Poland and Czech Republic it just that these two left the HRE early.

Give me some proof of Poland. There were Polish parts part of it, but never Poland itself.

Even the Baltic countries (which are not Slavic but there own ethnic group) are represented by Fredrick of Prussia. Prussian are Baltic not Germans.

Prussians were germans btw...

Also the Celts themselves controlled a large portion of Eastern Europe

They never controlled anything. They were tribes, not a state. And they do not represent any slavic nation in the game. (or Magyar/Romanian)

Even though I would rather have Poland then HRE, because Poland had at on time the largest empire in Europe. You just have to live with what you get and personally Europe is already overly represented compared to the rest of the world in this game.

Look at the thread title. Eastern europe is under-represented.

Also Eastern Europe can include a variety of countries because there are a variety of accepted definitions.

And most include Slavs, Magyars and Romanians. The ones who should have representation.

Just because YOU say so or Mr. None who wrote it in the Wiki it doesn't make it true. In Italy Central Europe is used all the darn time, as well as in the whole Europe, starting from the Time Zones.

In Poland Central Europe is used alot as well. Some countries still use it, but the term "died" of from the rest of the world after WW2. why? the Iron Curtain thing.

 

[juno]

Prussians were germans btw...

This is not quite correct. Initially Prussians were balts ["Old Prussians"], but then they were assimilated by some Germanic people. If memory fails me not, Prussian language [a language of Baltic language group, like Lithuanian and Latvian] prevailed untill 17th or 18th century.
See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Baltic : Baltic = "of or pertaining to a group of languages, as Latvian, Lithuanian, and Old Prussian, that constitute a branch of the Indo-European family".

 

[Traitorfish]

In Poland Central Europe is used alot as well. Some countries still use it, but the term "died" of from the rest of the world after WW2. why? the Iron Curtain thing.

Well, if the term "Central Europe" is used in Europe, then it's a valid title for the region. Yes, it does tend to be forgotten in favour of the East/West divide, but it is at least as valid a term as "Northern Europe" or "Southern Europe", both of which conflict with the Cold War definitions of East and West.
As I said earlier, one could reasonably use "Central Europe" to refer to those Slavic (and Magyar") countries which are traditionally Roman Catholic.

 

[Calbrenar]

It was a joke. (a sad attempt at one atleast) if your that interested do it yourself.

I hope that gladiator game you're linking to isn't something you wrote. Pretty sad that its so under played that you need to spoof links to get people to check it out lol.


-------

As far as Eastern Europe not being properly represented.... It's eastern Europe!!!!! Didn't you see Eurotrip? rofl

 

[Silica_Pathways]

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

Yup, Baltic States count as northern Europe. Saying they're eastern Europe would be bit offensive actually, imo...

 

[warpus]

Holy Roman Empire included both Poland and Czech Republic it just that these two left the HRE early.

O RLY?

 

[pengoyo]

First of all the map isn't 100% correct i know that, i quickly did that in paint!

I was more playing devil advocate for there is still a big gap if you stretch the civilizations to include more countries and it is obvious no stretch is required in western Europe.

Also I included the part about the Polish Empire to say it is not just that Eastern Europe is unrepresented because nothing happened there it is just for some reason people don't know very much about what empire existed there.

 

[pengoyo]

O RLY?

Sorry I should not have said Poland put poles for the HRE included some put not all of the polish state orginaly. Also this map is a latter map you can tell because Venice did not become a sizable country in main land europe until the 1400's so this map is probably much later. Just went to wikipedia and this map is from the 1630's

Also the other problem is pole use to extend a little further west then they do now and the HRE borders were very fluid over the years. The problem is that the MODERN day countries are based on MODERN day distributions of people which has changed a lot over the centuries.

"The Empire's territorial extent varied over its history, but at its peak encompassed the territories of present-day Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Belgium, and the Netherlands as well as large parts of modern Poland, France and Italy." from wikipedia

And yes Prussian where a Baltic people who where later absorbed by German.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I hope that gladiator game you're linking to isn't something you wrote. Pretty sad that its so under played that you need to spoof links to get people to check it out lol.

Hehe... those rpgs are so addicting sometimes...

The problem is that the MODERN day countries are based on MODERN day distributions of people which has changed a lot over the centuries.

Not exactly.. Poles lived in the same area for over a 1200 years.

as well as large parts of modern Poland

Not very large compared to the entire country.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not exactly.. Poles lived in the same area for over a 1200 years.

True- their have been no major ethnic or cultural shifts in Europe since the Migration period, which ended at least, as LastOne said, 1200 years ago.
While it's correct to say that modern nations are primarily based on shared national identity, this is a new phenomenon, one which only became widespread during the Enlightenment. Prior to that, nation-states did not exist, with feudal holdings- Kingdoms, Empires and the like- being the primary political entities. There were exceptions, of course- the Italian city-states being the earliest examples, or Commonwealths like that of Poland or England being later, more large-scale examples.
As much as anything else, these feudal holdings often shaped national identities, which is why old kingdoms often have modern equivalents- in Poland's case, for example, the dominance of the Polans tribe over the Slavic tribes of modern Poland lead to the formation of a kingdom, which, through the inevitable moves towards cultural and linguistic hegemony, lead to the formation of the modern Polish nation-state.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Just to throw in there, historians believe that before the baptism of Miezko, there were polish city-states much like the ones of Greece.

^ according to some polsih newspaper i just read...

 

[Saim]

I disagree- Zoroastrianism, while far less widespread than either Shinto or Sikhism are today, has had much greater historical significance. It was the first major monotheistic faith, the forerunner of Judaism, and, by extension, Judaism and Christianity. It was, at one point, the state religion of the Persian empire, and so held great influence across much of Western Asia.
By contrast, Sikhism has always been limited to a relatively small region of India, while Shinto is nothing more than the native mythology of Japan. Of course, you could say the same about Hinduism, but the geographical extent and number of followers is much greater in Hinduism's case. Maybe that's just me rationalising in an attempt to defend Firaxis, but it makes some sense.
Still, if we ever did have another three civs, Sikhism and Shinto would definitely be the first two choices after Zoroastrianism.

The difference is that Hinduism spread across a subcontinent while Shintoism spread across an island.

 

[seasnake]

the question comes down to what represents a geographical area: It's true that Byzantines, HRE and Russia all had large chunks of Eastern Europe, but I don't feel that necessarily makes them Eastern Europeans. Russia I argue is, but I think it is the only one (albeit the most important historically, IMO).
Compared with the rest of the Europe, Eastern Europe is the least represented. But that said, I think it is silly to complain about one chunk of a small continent when the rest of the World is waiting to get theirs in.

 

[dragodon64]

The difference is that Hinduism spread across a subcontinent while Shintoism spread across an island.

Before Buddhism, Hinduism was the main religion of most of SE Asia (mainland and islands). Since there really is no distinct split between Hinduism and Buddhism. The people of SE Asia just accepted the new form of Hinduism, which was later called Buddhism by Europeans. Shintoism, on the other hand was a very ancient mythology that existed before the Japanese became a civilization (by my crude standards ~300-200 BC) so there wasn't any actual spreading involved.

 

[TheLastOne36]

the question comes down to what represents a geographical area: It's true that Byzantines, HRE and Russia all had large chunks of Eastern Europe, but I don't feel that necessarily makes them Eastern Europeans. Russia I argue is, but I think it is the only one (albeit the most important historically, IMO).
Compared with the rest of the Europe, Eastern Europe is the least represented. But that said, I think it is silly to complain about one chunk of a small continent when the rest of the World is waiting to get theirs in.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but i do have an arguement

What are you going to add that's not already represented that's more historically important then poland that's not in europe?

None right? I thought so.

 

[Saim]

Before Buddhism, Hinduism was the main religion of most of SE Asia (mainland and islands). Since there really is no distinct split between Hinduism and Buddhism. The people of SE Asia just accepted the new form of Hinduism, which was later called Buddhism by Europeans. Shintoism, on the other hand was a very ancient mythology that existed before the Japanese became a civilization (by my crude standards ~300-200 BC) so there wasn't any actual spreading involved.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but i do have an arguement

What are you going to add that's not already represented that's more historically important then poland that's not in europe?

None right? I thought so.

Southeastern Asia (only 1 civ) - Siam, Dai Viet
Central Asia (no civs) - Khwarezm, Kushan
Western Africa (1 civ) - Songhai, Ghana
Northern Asia (no civs) - ?
Southern Asia (I include Iran in Western Asia, btw) (1 civ) - Split India, maybe Durranis
Southern Africa (1 civ) - ?
Pacific (no civs) - maybe Hawai'i, Maori or Polynesians
Northern America (2 civs) - split the NA
Central America + Caribbean (2 civs) - ?
Southern America (1 civ) - Moche?


Those places are in more dire need of new civs, and they're really historically important (except for maybe Songhai and Ghana). Northern Asia is even bigger than Europe (probably like quadruple the size)!

Areas that have smaller amounts than Europe, but not too under-repped:

Eastern Asia (4 civs) - Tibet, Manchuria
Western Asia (5 if you include Persia) - Parthia, Assyria, Akkad, Hittites, Seljuks, Iran? (maybe split Iran from pre-Islam Persia with Safavid, Timurid and modern Iranian leaders)
Northern Asia (2, 3 if you count Arabia) - Berbers (based mostly on the Almoravid and Almohad dynasties), maybe Numidia (weren't the Numidians Berbers?)

In contrast, Europe has 14 civs (if you include Ottomans, which I include in both Western Asia and Europe, because I base it on capitals, so Sogut is in Western Asia and Constantinople is in Europe). Do you think it's fair if we give Europe EVEN MORE? Maybe 1 more European civ. But that's it.