How would you order the Civ 5 civilizations in their historical importance order?

[Domen]

I think you should check some historical demography handbooks.

I already did.

If cities had something like organized garbage removal and sewage. Which they generally didn't, until recent times.

Very often they did have it. Many of larger and more important Medieval cities even had sewage systems.

In Poland the capital city - Cracow - had a sewage system with mostly wooden and sometimes also ceramic pipes already in 1200s.

On the other hand, Warsaw did not have a proper sewage system until the 18th century, if I remember correctly.

So generalizations simply do not apply here. There were regional differences.

put the garbage can out.

Yes. And what did you think? That people were swimming in garbage inside their houses or when they wanted to get to the other side of the street?

They had cemeteries in the past - so they did have also rubbish dumbs.

In Rome they even had a separate rubbish dumb for broken pottery and separate one for other kinds of rubbish, IIRC.

They took a bath every day, cleaned their teeth and put the garbage can out.

Yes. If they couldn't take a bath at home, they were doing this in public baths. Not every day but each few days.

In Early Middle Ages - before introduction of public baths - also steam baths were popular in Scandinavia and in Slavic countries.

And in villages people had wooden washtubs (often large enough for 2 people) or they were taking a bath in nearby rivers or lakes.

If you don't know how is it possible to clean your teeth without a modern toothbrush, watch Bear Grylls' "Ultimate Survival".

This started in late medieval times, yes. (Hardly before.)

In Ancient times already.

Source?

Here:

http://historum.com/ancient-history/24362-cities-ancient-greece.html#post581281

3 - High levels of productivity in agriculture: Ancient Greek agriculture reached very high levels of productivity. The heavy use of manure, the spacial division of crops, where grain, olives and grapes were cultivated in the relatively best soil and traded using the mediterranean sea as a transportation system, and the extensive use of metal tools enabled agricultural productivity to reach levels only again equaled in the 19th century in dry farming.

References are provided at the bottom of Guaporense's post.

Errr, no. Only rich peasants were able to produce for the market.

I have read in several books about "average Polish 15th to 16th century peasants" - not "rich" ones. And such peasants were able to produce for the market (during that time period). Of course most of them were not involved in exporting food via the Baltic Sea (this was done mainly by large landowners).

They were producing it for the local market (i.e. selling their surplus in the nearest town or city).

I'm sure that explains all the peasant revolts: taxes were low.

Reasons for peasant revolts were various, depending on a particular revolt.

Often those were religious reasons.

There were even such peasant revolts, which were actually AGAINST the abolition of feudalism...

The one doesn't go without the other: improved hygiene will show a drop in mortality rate - especially for children.

In my opinion the 19th century drop in mortality of children has to be attributed not to improved hygiene, but to more varied diet than in previous centuries and to improved medicine. Diet started to become more varied already earlier - with the beginning of European colonization of other continents.

But at first, varied diet was available only to rich people, because various plants brought to Europe were expensive initially.

For example potatoes were for a long time used as flowers, before it was discovered that they are good for eating.

average household couldn't possibly have consisted of 7 people, as it would apply the average household could sustain that number of people.

Children were investment for parents - the more children you had, the more pairs of hands and arms to work and to fight you had.

A family of 7 people including 2 parents and 5 children could sustain itself better than a family of 2 lonely and old parents.

The problem with children was high mortality ratio.

Average Medieval couple had even up to 9 children but only half of them could live long enough to come of age.

Also perinatal mortality ratio was very high - both for pregnant women and for their unborn or just born children.

In the 19th century perinatal mortality ratio considerably dropped with more childbirths being assisted by people with some medical knowledge.

Which basically has nothing to do with what was being discussed, being population prior to the population boom since 1800.

Nobody claims that Ancinet Galilee had a population density of 1000 people per km2 like modern Bangladesh (BTW how large is Galilee - how many km2?).

That being said, regions with population density of 50 - 100 or more per km2 could be found already in Ancient times and also later throughout centuries.

If you remove "sustained" that statement is correct.

If I don't remove "sustained" that statement is also correct because otherwise it would suggest that population in year 1700 AD was the same as in year 5000 BC - which is completely false, because population was already many times larger in 1700 AD than in 5000 BC.

The late medieval epidemics hit so hard, because population growth had been exceeding crop growth for a while already.

I agree - malnutrition caused that people were more vulnerable to disease. But not entire Europe was "hit so hard" by the Black Death:



Although that was perhaps also thanks to special measures applied by border guard of king Casimir III the Great.

Toiletries and cosmetics? Really?

I'm really surprised that you don't know this:

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

The history of cosmetics spans at least 6000 years of human history, and almost every society on earth. Some argue that cosmetic body art was the earliest form of ritual in human culture, dating over 100,000 years ago from the African Middle Stone Age. The evidence for this comes in the form of utilised red mineral pigments (red ochre) including crayons associated with the emergence of Homo sapiens in Africa.[1][2][3][4]

Archaeological evidence of cosmetics certainly dates from ancient Egypt and Greece. According to one source,[5] early major developments include the use of castor oil in ancient Egypt as a protective balm and skin creams[disambiguation needed] made of beeswax, olive oil, and rosewater described by the Romans. The Ancient Greeks also used cosmetics.[6][7] Cosmetics are mentioned in the Old Testament—2 Kings 9:30 where Jezebel painted her eyelids—approximately 840 BC—and the book of Esther describes various beauty treatments as well. Cosmetics were also used in ancient Rome, although much of Roman literature suggests that it was frowned upon. It is known that some women in ancient Rome used various substances, including lead-based formulas, to whiten the skin, and kohl was used to line the eyes.[8]

 

[red_elk]

No.

This article doesn't say space race was over after moon was reached. Neither it says space race was won by any side.

 

[Domen]

So Poland is better than Australia because it has more dead people?

No, because we used to have cool fashion:

Portrait of Stanisław Tęczyński - son of voivode of Cracow Jan Magnus Tęczyński (painted ca. year 1634):



Portrait of Aleksander Sobieski (last years of 17th century) wearing a long lined garment known as żupan:



Portrait of Stanisław Krasiński (first half of 17th century):



Portrait of Jan Zamoyski (early 17th century) - wearing a typical Polish coat called delia:



Other countries adopted Polish fashion too - here Gustavus Adolphus wearing a delia:



If we turn back in time to the Middle Ages - we can find there Polish fashion too.

Late Medieval soft leather boots with upturned toes, which are one of symbols of Medieval fashion, were originally from Poland (which is why these boots were called poulaines / poleyn / poulanes and alternatively cracoves / crackowes and le soulier de poulaine in France):





Wedding of Marianna Mniszech (future Empress of Russia) with False Dmitri in Cracow - fragment of a larger painting:



Russian former Tsar paying homage to Polish king and his son - new Emperor of Russia (since 1610) Władysław - fragment of a larger painting:



Not just Polish fashion but also political thought was influencing Western Europe.

Wawrzyniec Grzymała Goślicki (16th century) wrote "De optimo senatore" which described the ideal statesman, the book had its English edition:

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

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

This book by Goślicki was criticized by Queen Elizabeth I of England because it was anti-monarchical and pro-democratic:

On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson had this book in his private library:



Not to say that Polish music and dances were not popular in the West - here "Polnischer Tanz" by Valentin Haussmann (1560 - 1614):


Link to video.

=========================================

If you wear glasses, you wear a Polish Medieval invention. Glasses were invented by a Polish monk Erazm Ciołek known as Witelon (Witelo):

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erazm_Ciołek

 

[Masada]

No, because we used to have cool fashion

Sorry to burst your bubble, none of that is cool.

 

[daft]

My opinion on this topic:
1.Greece with 5 of the original wonders of the world, birthplace of philosophy and democracy it truly deserves the nr 1 spot. Rome second- thanks to them western civilization became the dominant civ in the world, their roads, colosseums, aqueducts, legions, etc, will never be forgotten. 3 to me has to be the true world seafearing/naval/cultural and commercial superpower- Britain. 4 China-incredible inventions, ancient and glorious history. 5. US- the world communicates in English language thanks to the dominance of Britain and later USA. 6. France. 7. Russia- too low on the original list, long and glorious history and several hundred years of being in the top ten nations in power/importance in the world. 8 Byzantium- for several hundred years after the fall of Rome it was a cultural and commercial world superpower. 9 Persia- now called Iran, hundreds of years as a world power. 10 Germany- scientific and industrial leader, became history's antiheroes after starting WWII, after that India, Japan, Mongolia, Arabia, Turkey, Spain, Scandinavia and Austro-Hungary, not in order.

 

[daft]

Oops, forgot to add Egypt and Babylon to my list, they should both be there around 10th-15th place. Consider the Great Lighthouse of Pharos and the Great Library of Alexandria as Hellenistic, not Egyptian Wonders of Ancient World, as both were built by the Ptolemaic-Greek Pharaohs after the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great.

 

[Domen]

1.Greece with 5 of the original wonders of the world

Well, the list of wonders was also compiled by Greeks. No surprise they chose mostly their own stuff.

 

[Kyriakos]

(edit ).

 

[schlaufuchs]

Rome second- thanks to them western civilization became the dominant civ in the world, their roads, colosseums, aqueducts, legions, etc, will never be forgotten.

Leaving aside the sillier aspects of this post and my larger issues with the definition of civilization and its usefulness as a term of delineation and your apparent Euro-Sino-centrism (and elitism), this is demonstrably untrue. It implies that "western civilization" (read: White, elite, male, western Europe) has been the "dominant civ" (what does that even mean) in the world since Roman times, which is of course, false. In terms of trade, economics, population, and degree of urbanization (all of which I think are silly metrics with which to rate a people, but they're what posters in this thread seem to like) Western Europe was at a severe disparity with other parts of the world, particularly India, the Middle East (incl. Egypt) and China. It really wasn't even until the late 18th/early 19th century that Europe (read: White, elite, male, Western Europe) truly outpaced China on a technological or economic level. Notably none of these things were accomplished by the Romans.

 

[daft]

Love a good discussion! Whichever country, or rather culture one grew up in, he/she is likely to have it higher on this type of list than others.
The way I see it is that China grew stagnant, Europeans took advantage and became dominant.

 

[daft]

Didn't Poland become a large European nation only after the union/merger with Lithuania?

 

[Domen]

Didn't Poland become a large European nation only after the union/merger with Lithuania?

Depends what do you consider as "large nation" - number of "heads" of population, area of territory, or military and economic strength ???

Before the union, Lithuania had bigger territory than Poland, but a smaller population, because most of its territory was sparsely populated and economically underdeveloped. Since 1569 - the Union of Lublin - also territory of Poland became larger than that of Lithuania, as Ukraine was ceded to Poland.

Around 1400, population of Poland was ca. 1,5 - 2 times higher than population of Lithuania, even though territory of Poland was ca. 2 - 2,5 times smaller.

Economic and military power of Poland was also more significant than that of Lithuania - for example in the battle of Grunwald (1410) 2/3 of coalition forces were mustered by the Crown of Poland (including mercenaries hired for Polish money), while 1/3 were mustered by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

When it comes to territory / area - before the union of Krewo (1389) Poland was roughly the same size as today (ca. 300,000 km2), but different shape.

When it comes to ethnic groups, Lithuania was mostly a Ruthenian state - with ca. 70% of the population being Ruthenians. Lithuanians were a minority in their own country since the 14th century, even though ethnic Lithuanian lands were more densely populated than lands where Ruthenians were the majority.

In Late Medieval Lithuanian armies, proportion of Lithuanians / Ruthenians was like 50 / 50 (even though Ruthenians were 70% of the population).

Poland - since year 1340 - also included a large Ruthenian population, but Poles were a majority (around 80%). After the union, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth included 3 main ethnic groups - Poles, Ruthenians and Lithuanians. 4th to 6th most numerous groups were Jews, Germans and perhaps Armenians.

Other minority groups of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were - for example - Lipka Tatars, Scots, Karaims, Vlachs, Gypsies, Hollanders, etc.

Poles were roughly 40% to 60% of population - depending on time period and author of estimation. Ruthenians were roughly 30% to 50% of population, Lithuanians - ca. 5% to 10%, with higher number at the beginning and then going down. All other ethnic groups combined were 5% to 10%.

When it comes to Germans and Jews in the Commonwealth - in the 16th century Germans were more numerous, while in the 18th century - Jews.

Armenians were most numerous also in the 16th century and during the first half of the 17th century.

Scots and Hollanders (from the Netherlands) started to immigrate to Poland in large numbers during the second half of the 17th century.

Lipka Tatars were more numerous in the 16th century, since wars of the 17th century took an especially heavy toll among them.

Number of Vlachs was higher early on, and then decreased as they assimilated. Number of Gypsies was pretty fluent over time.

=======================================

Since the union of Poland and Lithuania, a considerable Polonization took place in Lithuania - especially when it comes to Lithuanian elites.

For example in 1599 one of Lithuanian writers wrote in his preface to Lithuanian Catholic Homily:

"Our own Lithuanian people, preferring the knowledge of Polish language and fluency in this language, are neglecting, abandoning and rejecting their own language - everyone can clearly see this. How advisable is this tendency, I do not know, some people praise it.

My reason tells me that it is indeed not admirable to condemn the people's fluency and knowledge in foreign languages, especially Polish - which is almost like innate language to us, due to the beloved unification of our Grand Duchy with the famous Crown of Poland.

However, I do criticize the negligence, abomination and almost rejection of our own Lithuanian language by many of our people. (...) Lastly, so that both I and all of you can have profit from and find help in all these books translated by me to Lithuanian language, I will be satisfied, if my - no matter how little - work, as I expect and demand, becomes the reason and motiviation for our people to fall in love with our native language, preserve it and spread it."

======================================

Let's quote some data from book "Demografia Rzeczypospolitej..." ("Demography of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth") by Cezary Kukło:

Around 1640, population of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is estimated by Kukło as ca. 11 million (and this number does not include population of Polish-Lithuanian fiefdoms and vassal states). Kukło's estimate is rather conservative, because many authors say 12 million or even more, instead of 11 million.

That 11 million included over 7 million in the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland and almost 4 million in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Territory of what is today Belarus (ca. 200,000 km2) had a population of almost 2,9 million at that time (this according to "History of Belarus" - by E. Mironowicz and O. Łatyszonek). This leaves roughly 1,1 million inhabitants for other lands of the Grand Duchy (i.e. what is now Lithuania and small westernmost pieces of what is now Russia) - including perhaps slightly less than 1 million for lands which are today parts of the modern state of Lithuania.

Out of over 7 million people in the Crown of Poland, ca. 3,9 million lived in regions of Greater Poland, Mazovia and Lesser Poland (in total 150,000 km2) - which were the 3 most densely populated regions of the Crown. This leaves the remaining over 3,1 million for other parts of the Crown, that is the regions of Red Ruthenia, Ukraine and Royal Prussia). In Ukraine population was rapidly increasing between 1569 and 1648 due to Polish-sponsored colonization.

Regarding the Crown of Poland - I have a very detailed data regarding its population by each voivodeship in years 1578 and then in 1790.

Regarding the Grand Duchy - here I have a very detailed data regarding its population (also by each voivodeship) only for 1790.

I made this map below, which shows population density (number of people per 1 km2) of several regions of the Crown of Poland in 1578 - this is based on (but I've not yet completed this map so not all regions can be seen and only some of them have figures for population density given so far):

The highest population density was in Płock Voivodeship, Cuiavia Voivodeship and Inowrocław Voivodeship (the 3 small ones). Three out of four voivodeships which were parts of Royal Prussia province, had respectively 26,3 (Malbork Voiv.), 20,3 (Chełmno Voiv.) and 11,4 (Pomerelia Voiv.) people / km2:



The figure for Red Ruthenian Voivodeship (14,2 people per km2) may not be fully reliable - perhaps population density there was in fact higher.

 

[W|M]

Who lived in Poland around the time of the Roman Empire?

 

[Kyriakos]

Some sort of deutero-slavs?

Cause all know that the proto-slavs were in Fyromia

 

[Domen]

Who lived in Poland around the time of the Roman Empire?

The Roman Empire existed for several centuries, which is a very long time.

During that time there were many population changes and movements in what is now Poland.

In most cases it is imossible to say what languages were spoken by people who lived in what is now Poland at that time. We even don't know the names of all those tribes - there are archaeological cultures (which are distinguished from each other basing on archaeological findings), not tribes. Some archaeological findings suggest that Celtic tribes could penetrate into southern parts of Poland (but Celtic items found there could be as well the result of trade).

At some point Germanic Goths migrated from Scandinavia to what is now Western Pomerania (they landed near the mouth of the Odra River).

About the presence of Goths in parts of territory of modern Poland we know from writings of Gothic 6th century AD historian - Jordanes.

According to Jordanes, original Gothic arrival included just 3 ships with perhaps a handful of Gothic people on board - which sounds a bit ridiculous.

Not all of information described by Jordanes can be consider as credible, though - he mingled the Gothic popular traditions with classical sources about the Getae (claiming them as ancestors of Goths), and thus was able to view the Gothic kings as companions to Getic philosophers known from Greek literature.

Goths for a few hundred years remained in North-Western Poland, then migrated across territory of Poland and eventually settled in more or less what is now Southern Ukraine and Moldova (this is confirmed by fact, that remnants of Gothic-speakers survived in the Crimea until the 15th century).

It was from that place (Southern Ukraine and Moldova), where the Goths marched to cross the Danube River and invaded the Roman Empire.

When it comes to Slavic tribes:

According to allochthonic (migrationist) theories, Slavic people could live in eastern parts of what is now Poland around the time of the Roman Empire (with their main territory being Belarus and Northern Ukraine). Western parts of Poland were gradually colonized by Slavic tribes after year 400 AD.

Shortly after year 500 AD Slavic settlers / tribes are already confirmed in what is now Eastern Germany, so in Western Poland they had to arrive earlier.

Slavic expansion into Western Poland and Eastern Germany is sometimes considered as related to Hunnic invasions of Germanic tribes. According to this theory, Hunnic invasions paved the way for Slavic expansion, by driving off most of Germanic tribes (who escaped from the Huns - which in turn trigerred Germanic migrations into Roman territory). But there is at least one "weak point" of this theory - namely that not many signs of Hunnic presence or Hunnic invasions on Polish territory were found by archaeologists (and even a few ones which were found, are limited only to southern parts of Poland).

On the other hand, Hunnic activity might be confirmed by fact that in ca. 400 - just before the arrival of Slavic people - archaeologists found traces of settlement in caves, from around the same period when many villages were depopulated (this suggests that some people abandoned their villages and settled in caves, which provided protection and good hiding places). In general there was a considerable depopulation, but not any total depopulation (as old historiography - especially 19th century German historiography - claimed). In many places the continuity of settlement was reported, which means that large part of indigenous population did not escape or migrate, but remained and was later conquered and / or assimilated by Slavs. But now an important question arises - namely, if people hiding in caves was the result of Hunnic invasion, or maybe Slavic invasion? - or maybe Slavic people came together with the Huns?

As you can see there are too many questions and not enough of clear answers.

Large part of the Baltic Sea hinterland located in what is Poland was perhaps inhabited by Baltic tribes - who were later gradually being pushed back by expanding Slavic tribes, eventually ending up in the thick strip of land along the Baltic coast known at some point of history as East Prussia.

It is believed that Western Pomerania was the region where Baltic and Germanic influences mixed with each other - and later Slavic influences joined. Eventually the region became entirely Slavic-speaking (Baltic languages remained in use to the east of the Vistula River, in the region of Prussia). Large part of Mazovia (region where Warsaw is located) - especially north-eastern part of it - was perhaps also Baltic-speaking before Slavic expansion.

According to Greco-Roman historians, Vistula River - which is in the middle of Poland - used to be the border between "Germania" and "Scythia". It does not mean, however, that all tribes in what was named "Germania" were Germanic, and all tribes in what was named "Scythia" were Scythian. There were both Celtic and other non-Germanic tribes in "Germania", but also some Germanic tribes (Goths) migrated to "Scythia" (and other non-Scythian tribes lived there).

Cause all know that the proto-slavs were in Fyromia

Who knows this? BTW - not all nations classified today as Southern Slavs, came to Balkan territory from the Danube River area.

For example ancestors of Serbians came from what is now Eastern Germany - they have common ancestors with Lusatian Sorbs:

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

Probably that took place after the conquest of Sorbian Principality of duke Dervan by the Frankish Empire:

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

Croatians also came to what is now Croatia from the north (from area known as White Croatia or alternatively as Chrobatia) - not from the east.

Croatians came there in two waves - first wave came already in the 7th century (according to Constantine Porphyrogennetos).

Second wave most probably came as refugees who escaped from White Croatia / Chrobatia after the Magyar Invasion (9th century).

By the time Serbian and Croatian tribes came to what is now Serbia and Croatia, this area was already settled by other Slavic tribes (those who crossed the Danube and invaded Balkans from the eastern direction - from the territory of modern Romania and Bulgaria).

So Serbians and Croatians were originally Western Slavs, not Southern Slavs. They became classified as Southern Slavs only later. Lusatian Sorbs - who live in Eastern Germany and who share common ancestor tribes with Serbians - are still classified as Western Slavs. Not all tribes from Dervan's Principality migrated south during the 7th century - some of them migrated (these later formed modern Serbians), some stayed (these formed Germany's Sorbs).

Moreover, Serbian and Croatian languages were initially very similar - as professor Zofia Kurnatowska writes:

"Ethnic and cultural environments

In discussed timeframe [9th - 10th centuries] initially quite homogenous culture of Southern Slavs undergoes some kind of differentiation. Centers of solidifcation appear, which are nucleuses of later Southern Slavic nationalities. Their coming into being was caused to a large degree by certain political-cultural conditions and to a lesser extent by processes of differentiation of Southern Slavic languages. (...)

Inhabitants of western part of the Balkan Peninsula, Serbian and Croatian tribes, were divided by quite negligible linguistic differences. What decided about their separate progress and about coming into being of different nationalities was the development of two distinct state organisms in those territories and their connection to two different Church centres (western in case of Croatia, eastern in case of Serbia). Croatia was initially limited only to territories located in the hinterland of the coasts of the Adriatic Sea. The expansion of the name Croatia into territory of Slavonia had, as has been underlined in historiography, a rather political than ethnic character. The issue of Serbia is more complicated. There is lack of exact information regarding the original territorial extent of Serbian tribes. Basing on tradition written down by Constantine Porphyrogennetos (but is it credible?) we classify as Serbians a number of tribes from southern Dalmatia (Trawunians, Zachlumians, Konawlans, Pagans-Nerentans), and first of all inhabitants of parts of Raška and Bosnia located "behind the mountains". Mysterious is the issue of the basins of Vardar and Morava rivers. Serbian ethnic center became more meaningful during further centuries, in period of heyday of the Medieval Serbian state. The unity of Serbian territory was strengthened by independent organization of its Church (at first an autocephalous bishopric, later a patriarchate).

Most of Balkan territories were affected by Byzantine influences and belonged to the Orthodox Church, which however allowed for the development of native Slavic culture in this area. Only Croatia and part of coastal Serbia, as well as Slovenia, were tied with the Western Church and affected by influences of the Latin culture. (...)"

======================================

Fyromia

About Macedonia professor Kurnatowska writes:

"(...) The issue of Macedonia is controversial in historiography. According to some views Macedonian tribes, which were among first Slavic tribes which settled in the Balkan Peninsula, formed a separate group. But other researchers count them as part of the group of Bulgarian tribes. Anyways, in discussed period [9th - 10th centuries] inhabitants of Macedonia, which was part of the Bulgarian state, were considered as a Bulgarian peoples, to which contributed the fact that the state organism was brought here from north-eastern Bulgaria. The last ruler of this state - Ivan Vladislav - in an iscription from year 1015 or 1016 calls himself "a Bulgarian autocrat" and "a man of Bulgarian descent". The thema of Bulgaria - which was founded as the result of the conquest by Basil II - included also the central part of the Peninsula with the region of Vardar Macedonia. (...)"

Thema of Bulgaria included the region of Vardar Macedonia - which roughly corresponds to modern borders of the Republic of Macedonia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria_(theme)



Maybe Macedonia could change its name to "Bulgaria #2" or to "Vardaria". But its current name "Macedonia" is pretty valid and OK as well.

===================================

Edit:

Sorry but "the Republic of Vardaria" is already taken (see the link below) - so Greeks will have to accept its current name of "Macedonia":

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=vardaria



But - after all - they can also call themselves "Vardaria".

After all, there were at least three states called "Albania" in history:

1) One was in what is now Georgia
2) Another one was in what is now Scotland
3) Another one is the Albania we know today

 

[Domen]

Slavic expansion into Western Poland and Eastern Germany is sometimes considered as related to Hunnic invasions of Germanic tribes. According to this theory, Hunnic invasions paved the way for Slavic expansion, by driving off most of Germanic tribes (who escaped from the Huns - which in turn trigerred Germanic migrations into Roman territory). But there is at least one "weak point" of this theory - namely that not many signs of Hunnic presence or Hunnic invasions on Polish territory were found by archaeologists (and even a few ones which were found, are limited only to southern parts of Poland).

Well - I must correct my previous statement - 2 archaeological sites which are believed to be Hunnic were discovered by archaeologists also in Western Poland. Below is a map showing graves, settlements and items found in Poland, which are believed to be traces of Huns from the 5th century AD (archaeological sites in Podłoziny near Poznań, Jędrzychowice near Wrocław, Jakuszowice, Przemęczany, Witów near Cracow and Świlcza near Rzeszów):

Most of them are dated to the 1st half of the 5th century:



But 6 archaeological sites is still not much - it confirms reconnaissance raids or trade, but it is doubtful whether it confirms a large-scale invasion.

And regarding Slavic presence in Eastern Germany - as I wrote above, it is confirmed already shortly after year 500 AD:

According to Procopius of Caesarea, who noted this under year 512 AD, Germanic tribe of Heruli, after being defeated by the Lombards (ca. 505 - 508), migrated from their homeland at the middle Danube river (A) to the land of the Warini at the Warnow river (B). During that migration, according to Procopius, the Heruli were travelling "in turn through all lands of the Sclaveni and vast wildernesses". This indicates, that already in the early 500s Slavs lived in vast areas between (A) and (B) - see the map below.

When it comes to Slavic incursions into the Byzantine Empire. According to Marcellinus Comes, already in 493 - 495 Thrace was invaded by some "unknown people". To describe them, he used the name of an already at that time non-existant tribe of the Gets (Getae). How do we know that those were Slavs? Over one hundred years later Theophylaktos Simokattes, historian of the early 7th century, explains that the Gets was a name given to Slavs at first contact (nearly all barbarian people attacking the Empire from the direction of the lower Danube river were being called like this - while the last mention of real Gets is from times of the reign of Vespasian in 1st century CE). Another Slavic invasion of Dobruja region is recorded in years 517 - 518, but here the invading people are already called the Antes. But those Slavic incursions from the direction of the Black Sea Coast were relatively small compared to those along the eastern foot of the Carpathian Mountains. The main Slavic pressure into the Danube line during the 6th century CE was by Slavic tribes migrating south between the Dniester River and the Carpathian Mountains, or even between the Pruth River and the Carpathian Mountains, so from the north-western direction, rather than from the north-eastern direction.

See the map below:



Finally - when it comes to (C) in the map posted above. This (C) is the place called Anthaib by author of "Historia Langobardorum" - Paul the Deacon. The region called "Anthaib" was - according to Paul the Deacon - one of regions passed by the Langobards during their migration south. The name of this place is sometimes connected with the Slavic Antes. As you can see, this place is located exactly in the middle between (A) and (B) - point of departure and destination of the Heruli migration in the early 6th century CE, during which - according to Procopius of Caesarea - the Heruli were marching through lands inhabited by the Sclaveni. Of course the Langobard migration (from Scandinavia to Italy) took place earlier than the Heruli migration:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Lombard_Migration.jpg

 

[Bulldog Bats]

The more I read this, the more I realize there is no way to accurately answer this - we are all hopelessly and expectedly influenced by where we came from.

 

[Domen]

The more I read this, the more I realize there is no way to accurately answer this - we are all hopelessly and expectedly influenced by where we came from.

To some extent for sure, but I tried to be objective and rated my country Poland as 20th - 25th on this list of importance.

Grain imports came usually from the Baltic, which at the end of the Middle Ages, started to develop a grain surplus, because it had enough wealthy landowners to invest in such an enterprise.

Indeed. And out of all grain imports from the Baltic, most came from Poland and then Russia.

But Russia started to export grain in large amounts not before the second half of the 17th century.

Poland in 15th to 17th centuries was the biggest exporter of grain to Western Europe.

Producing a large food surpluss was possible despite the generally infertile soils that Poland had and still has (please note that the main export grain-producing area of Poland was the Vistula River basin, not the fertile steppe of Ukraine - which in 16th to 17th centuries belonged to Poland, but was only being colonized at that time and was not yet known as the "granary of Europe", which it became later).

Here is the description of Poland's climate and geography by chronicler Jan Długosz (15th century) - my translation:

Please note that Poland's climate in the 15th century, as described by Długosz, was different (colder) than it had been previously during the Early Middle Ages, before the Little Ice Age (see this wiki article about the Little Ice Age - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age ).

There are sources which say that before the Little Ice Age - during the Medieval Warm Period - vineyards were present in large numbers in Poland. After the Little Ice Age, Polish colder climate could no longer sustain vineyards (but they were still growing in Poland's southern neighbour - Hungary):

(...) The Polish land, abounding in grains, alluring with fruits, large quantity of fish and tasty dairy products, famous of its animal wildlife, rich in cattle and herd, melliferous apiaries, stud farms of horses and numerous kinds of birds, rich in iron and lead, waxes and butter, but in some places agriculture is possible more thanks to human-imposed fertility rather than natural one, the land is woody, and thus it is abounding in cattle and grasses; the soils are in many places hardscrabble wastelands, innately infertile, but covered by forests and various types of scrubby trees, suitable either for apiaries, or for feedlots for cattle, and nowhere unused. This country has no vineyards and no olive plantations due to its severe northern coldness; instead of wine people drink beer, which they produce from rye, wheat and barley or spelt. In some places the soil is also greasy, and in some other places sandy, thicketed, steppe and infertile. And it teems with salt so much, that the amount of it mined as lumps of salt is greater than the amount made in salt-works. Thick of its snows and slippery because of its ice, but healthy due to accessibility of fresh air and draught of winds. Earthquakes, which are experienced by other countries so that their cities and villages are being buried beneath the ruins and mountains collapse in lines, as well as floods, are almost unknown here, or take place very rarely as unusual occurrences. Grains of all types can be stored for long years and time periods, without spoiling at all, while in neighbouring and bordering us Hungary grain stored for longer than one year breeds weevils and verminates. Poland also has mines of sulfur, even though not very plentiful ones. But it didn't give birth to any natural hot springs. (...)

Despite shortage of really fertile soils, Poland was the biggest exporter of grain in Europe during those ca. 200 years.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Domen:

I realize that everyone is trying to be objective (being half Polish descent myself, I took a look at everything you wrote). But in almost every post I saw here, the writer brought forth what they found great about their country.

There is just no way to objectively rank these countries. The US is the biggest player on the world stage for the last century, but many countries had many centuries of cultural, economic, and political power before most of the world even knew it existed. How do you compare the eastern v. western hemispheres, when they were so isolated for so long? And could go on from there.

 

[H4run]

Domen:

I realize that everyone is trying to be objective (being half Polish descent myself, I took a look at everything you wrote). But in almost every post I saw here, the writer brought forth what they found great about their country.

There is just no way to objectively rank these countries. The US is the BIGGEST player on the world stage for the last century, but many countries had many centuries of cultural, economic, and political power before most of the world even knew it existed. How do you compare the eastern v. western hemispheres, when they were so isolated for so long? And could go on from there.

I bet you are from US?