Let's Discuss Poland

[Unconquered Sun]

As black as ancient Egyptians were, sub-Saharan blacks rarely identify with them. Egypt influenced the Med and the Mid East, not sub-Saharan Africa.

 

[Spearthrower]

Modern sub-Saharan blacks? Well, that's different though isn't it?

We are talking 7000 years ago!

There's a lot of changes that have happened to Egypt in that time, racial ones particularly no matter how the Egyptian nationalists endeavour to maintain an unbroken link.

Also, Egypt most definitely did influence the ancient sub-Saharan part of the continent... there were a series of military excursions sent that way and trade was plentiful.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

None of the well-known heroes was blonde that I can think of.

Wow. Another Greek know-it-all that hasn't read stuff as basic as the Illiad.

Here's a blonde Greek for you: Achilles.

Moderator Action: Warned - Flaming!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Spearthrower]

Wow. Another Greek know-it-all that hasn't read stuff as basic as the Illiad.

Here's a blonde Greek for you: Achilles.

Number 1 - that is totally unnecessary - you know nothing about me so don't try to challenge my points by undermining my character.

Number 2 - I studied pre-Hellenistic Greece to BA level, so I think I have a right to make some comments here.

Number 3 - I happen to have the Illiad sat right next to me (the George Chapman translation)

Number 4 - I said "that I can think of".... which means, I am sitting in my house at 1 am - sorry I couldn't pull one character from hundreds out of my head....


Civility costs nothing.

 

[Tycho Brahe]

Are you referring to Egypt as a black civilization ?

Egypt is in Africa. All africans are black. DONT YOU KNOW GENETICS?!?

 

[Angst]

When was this ?
the largest political entity Poland has ever been a part of is Atilla's Hunnic empire.
The largest Polish political entity there ever has been is the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.
Both are pretty far cry from controlling most of the known world.

I didn't say controlled most, I said owned much. There's a difference. I stated that Poland had power. And they had. Land areal, yes. Powerful economy, yes. Effecient military, yes. In Civ standards they lack culture somehow, however.

In the European medieval era (I'm talking, well, about 1000 to 1400 at least regarding to your question.), Europe, North Africa and the Middle East = The known world btw. At least the known world in Europe. Poland had an economy which bested countries like Denmark (Not much Denmark, but militarily Denmark was far behind) and Muscowy, and also Austria.

And when it comes to gaming, noone would really dumb the Winged Hussar, would you?

EDIT: Oh, and with owned I meant outbested. Just to say it shortly.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

When was this ?
the largest political entity Poland has ever been a part of is Atilla's Hunnic empire.

Really, quit that Attila stuff, there weren't even Slavic people back then in Europe (that occured in VI cent). Polish territory was populated by Celts in time of Attila. The biggest Slavic entity slightly after that period was Samo Empire also called Samo's Realm. The biggest entity Poland has ever been a part of is, of course, the Empire of Russia (as a vassal state- personal union Kingdom of Poland 1815-1831). And it's not just a "funny addition" because most of the Russia's industry back then was located in Poland ;]

As an independent state, counting in all vassal and personal union territories it was not P-L Commonwealth but Kingdom of Poland under personal union of Ladislaus Warneńczyk - consisting of: Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Croatia and Moldova. And the period of Commonwealth (this term came official in 1569) is not a peak but decline. Golden period is believed to last from 1333 to 1569 and it's quite long period with Poland, Bohemia and Hungary (separate) as only countries controlling undepleted silver and gold mines in Europe.

The largest Polish political entity there ever has been is the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.

Simply put - no.

Both are pretty far cry from controlling most of the known world.

It depends on what you call "known world". Also, mark that "controlling" is vague concept. You can control large portions of Earth - like Canada or Syberia virtually meaning nothing, because until second part of XIX century they were mostly unpopulated, or white bear populated, that's why there was no point for Poland in creating colonies, because Ukraine had better soil, was closer, easier to exploit and actually more successfull venue for some period of time (it's because of price rush in XVI century).

 

[Spearthrower]

It depends on what you call "known world". Also, mark that "controlling" is vague concept. You can control large portions of Earth - like Canada or Syberia virtually meaning nothing, because until second part of XIX century they were mostly unpopulated, or white bear populated, that's why there was no point for Poland in creating colonies, because Ukraine had better soil, was closer, easier to exploit and actually more successfull venue for some period of time (it's because of price rush in XVI century).

Come on Tortilla Boy - you've been far too pragmatic until now to argue this one. Poland, by any stretch of the imagination, never controlled a significant part of the "known world" - unless you are using a different scale than me. When Poland was at its prime, much of the world was known (unless of course you are talking ethnocentrically?) and Poland's chunk of it was hardly significantly large. If the expression had been -"controlled a large part of Europe" - then fair enough.

 

[Wodan]

I am not going to make an absolutist claim that there were no blondes in Greece- there are blondes in Greece and FYI, there are blondes in India and China too. Just that they are not very common.
This is pretty well reflected in ancient Greek art- you will find that almost all greek paintings depict greeks with black hair, with very few being represented with lighter hair. This is also true about Alexander's potrait, numerous Greek amphora arts, etc.

That's a statistical correlation or logical inference, but not necessarily a provable deduction.

For example, perhaps black ink was simply easier to make than blonde ink.

(Never attribute to complex reasoning something that can be explained by simple human laziness. )

Wodan

 

[Spearthrower]

That's a statistical correlation or logical inference, but not necessarily a provable deduction.

For example, perhaps black ink was simply easier to make than blonde ink.

(Never attribute to complex reasoning something that can be explained by simple human laziness. )

Wodan

There are plenty of literary descriptions of them as brown haired too. In fact, many works tend to point to the Gods by depicting them as blond haired i.e. different than mortals.

Achilles, as my learned and polite friend reminded me, was blond... and he was very much associated with godliness.

 

[Tycho Brahe]

Number 1 - that is totally unnecessary - you know nothing about me so don't try to challenge my points by undermining my character.

Number 2 - I studied pre-Hellenistic Greece to BA level, so I think I have a right to make some comments here.

Number 3 - I happen to have the Illiad sat right next to me (the George Chapman translation)

Number 4 - I said "that I can think of".... which means, I am sitting in my house at 1 am - sorry I couldn't pull one character from hundreds out of my head....


Civility costs nothing.

Blondness and blue-eyedness where much more common futher east 2000 years ago. You can still find small populations of native blond people in modern Iran.

Yes Alexander WAS blond. Colin Farrell didn't put on that rug just to look silly.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Whatever the modern controversies, ancient Egyptians were much "blacker" than today.... meaning, they had a lot more in connection racially (morphologically) with other African peoples than with Middle Eastern peoples.

Could you point some other sources for that than "Black Athena (see end of this post).

2) Perhaps it would be best to describe them as the middle ground between the 2 racial groups.

Agreed, at least to some extent.

I've read almost everything i can get my hands on about Egypt's ancient history -- and it's my understanding that most people living in modern Egypt are not descendants of those who were around at the time of Pharaoh's Egypt.

Ancient Egyptian's also made quite clear distinctions on their art between Nubians/Egyptians/and other ethnic groups.

My point was just that i have really not seen Egyptian culture described as black culture (though they had Nubian rulers for quite a while).

Whichever way, their culture was the epitome of ancient Africa and the Greeks borrowed heavily from both African and Asiatic heritage. The Greeks considered themselves the scions of this knowledge and identified their origins as Phoenician colonies.

I know -- i've studied my share of Greek history too.

Read the book I noted above - Black Athena, Martin Bernal - it really challenges many of the cultural and historical notions we, in the West, take for granted.

It seems to be quite heavily debated book -- sadly, none of my local libraries seem to have it, or any other books by M. Bernal.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Number 1 - that is totally unnecessary - you know nothing about me so don't try to challenge my points by undermining my character.

Number 2 - I studied pre-Hellenistic Greece to BA level, so I think I have a right to make some comments here.

Number 3 - I happen to have the Illiad sat right next to me (the George Chapman translation)

Number 4 - I said "that I can think of".... which means, I am sitting in my house at 1 am - sorry I couldn't pull one character from hundreds out of my head....


Civility costs nothing.

Unfortunately, posting on a topic one is ignorant about costs nothing either. While I know nothing about you, I've read enough ignorant posts on such threads to know for certain the median poster is prone to making conclusions based on prejudice than credible research.

Ancient Greeks phenotype is indeed a point of various racist theories, so I've bothered to read some contemporary research on the matter. While there were blonde Greeks, racist theorists claim they were of Nordic ancestry, which is now proven to be false. In short, I agree with Ahimsadharma's conclusion, but not with his arguments which are as pseudo-scientific as the racists' ones.

 

[Tycho Brahe]

There are plenty of literary descriptions of them as brown haired too. In fact, many works tend to point to the Gods by depicting them as blond haired i.e. different than mortals.

Achilles, as my learned and polite friend reminded me, was blond... and he was very much associated with godliness.

Weird? Their gods were blond, even if they thought blond people where dumb barbarians?

 

[Tycho Brahe]

Modern sub-Saharan blacks? Well, that's different though isn't it?

We are talking 7000 years ago!

There's a lot of changes that have happened to Egypt in that time, racial ones particularly no matter how the Egyptian nationalists endeavour to maintain an unbroken link.

Also, Egypt most definitely did influence the ancient sub-Saharan part of the continent... there were a series of military excursions sent that way and trade was plentiful.

Changes happened to the blackness of egyptians, but not the greeks?

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Ancient Egyptian's also made quite clear distinctions on their art between Nubians/Egyptians/and other ethnic groups.

Ancient Egyptians made clear distinction between them and everybody else.

My point was just that i have really not seen Egyptian culture described as black culture (though they had Nubian rulers for quite a while).

Nonetheless, by modern categorization, ancient Egyptians are quite "black". So, you bring up a great point: how's that one of the greatest, and one of the "blackest" civilizations is so rarely mentioned in white v. black arguments? I believe the reason is Egyptian legacy lived in the Arab and the European civilizations far more than it did in the civilizations of sub-Saharan Africa.

 

[Spearthrower]

Could you point some other sources for that than "Black Athena (see end of this post).

Bear in mind that it is a number of years since I studied this... and I currently live a continent away from my personal book stash! ( ) but a few titles spring to mind - not choosing any particularly controversial ones.

Race, Class and Gender in the Formation of The Aryan Model of Greek Origins.... I don't remember the author's name at the moment - it will come to me later!!

In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth by... JP Mallory (had to search for this name too!! memory is going )

There was another text by Cavalli-Sforza.... but I can't remember the title now!

Sorry, it's just too late here - brain is in shut down mode!

I've read almost everything i can get my hands on about Egypt's ancient history -- and it's my understanding that most people living in modern Egypt are not descendants of those who were around at the time of Pharaoh's Egypt.

For sure! There have been countless invasions and repopulations since then.

My point was just that i have really not seen Egyptian culture described as black culture (though they had Nubian rulers for quite a while).

Their roots were linked culturally more to Africa than the middle east.... but they really were the gateway between them for so long, they were definitely distinctive.

It seems to be quite heavily debated book -- sadly, none of my local libraries seem to have it, or any other books by M. Bernal.

Indeed it was.... but that's not surprising considering it traced the roots of the modern "aryanisation" of Greece to nazi thinkers and writers. No one really wants to accept that kind of thing.... it's hard to challenge long held notions especially when they reflect badly upon yourself. This book was treated as heresy when it was released!!

However, I must say that this book is a core text for social anthropology. It's controversial nature does not detract from its veracity and supported analysis. Ultimately, it is still up to the reader whether they accept his analysis, but the facts that are brought up are unarguable. Pre-Nazi German writers definitely remodelled classical history to match their modern agenda.

 

[Angst]

Where's TheLastOne36 gone to?

 

[Spearthrower]

Unfortunately, posting on a topic one is ignorant about costs nothing either. While I know nothing about you, I've read enough ignorant posts on such threads to know for certain the median poster is prone to making conclusions based on prejudice than credible research.

Ancient Greeks phenotype is indeed a point of various racist theories, so I've bothered to read some contemporary research on the matter. While there were blonde Greeks, racist theorists claim they were of Nordic ancestry, which is now proven to be false. In short, I agree with Ahimsadharma's conclusion, but not with his arguments which are as pseudo-scientific as the racists' ones.

Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions then... I know nothing about you, but I assume you have at least a working knowledge until you prove otherwise!

I agree that the whole "nordic" element was just badly conceived. Blond hair is present in many societies throughout the world, just as with red-heads, it is likely the Greeks ascribed them special powers or connections thanks to their difference to the norm.


@Tycho - I dont follow your post? Where did I say that changes had not happened to the Greeks? And yes, they portrayed many of their Gods as blond.... not that it means much when they were also portrayed with brown hair, black hair... as animals and able to change sex.

 

[cybrxkhan]

on Egyptians:

some looked like Caucasian, some looked more black. i personally think Egypt was a melting pot, but that itself is already pretty radical compared to some other ideas.

there is this book i have read, on the egyptian race issue, called "Black Spark, White Fire", i think its a decade or two old. its not Afrocentric, but also not the traditional scholarly view either. in my opinoin, it presents a more balanced view of the "blackness" of Egypt, saying that there were definitely a number "black" Egyptians, though no where close to the extent that Afrocentrists exaggerate of. considering all the stuff i've read, its a decent read, even though it itself suggests very rather radical theories on Egyptian history, though nothing that i would believe is unbelievable.

EDIT: I don't think Egyptians were even 75% black. I don't think they were even 75% white. Anymore and that is pretty ridiculous to me.


on Poland, the MAIN TOPIC:

Poland ruled a decent chunk of Europe, therin gaining the title of "regional power". when one gets to the second expansion, a number of the civs were "regional powers" - Khmer, Zulus, Ethiopians, Aztecs, etc. However, the thing is, although Poland was a "regional power", there are already too many even more proportioanlly powerful European civs already in the game - England, France, Germany, Russia, and Spain, just to name some. thats why Poland isn't too high on the list, because Europe itself already has too many civs, even if Eastern Europe doesn't.