Let's Discuss Poland

[Spearthrower]

Even better Julian - I found this link

http://www.founders.howard.edu/moorland-spingarn/Antiquit.htm

 

[Unconquered Sun]

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

Many of their gods, including the most important, Zeus, are usually depicted as dark.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

Powerful economy, yes.

Well, this part is debatable, but it requires knowledge of economic development of Europe. It's like saying "USA is the richest country of the World now". Yes, it is, if you could say that man who went to the bank and borrowed 10 trillion $ (and came back for 1 trillion each year) is rich.
What Poland did in that time is the same thing but made by different means - firstly: owning gold mines in gold dependent currency system. Secondly: selling wood, tar for ships, deforestation (that one on unimaginable scale). Thirdly: extensive grain production, pushing it to the limits - came in cost of labour investment - all Europe (excluding Prussia and everything to the east) went then through the process of developing puting-out system (also called - no wonder - cottage system). This process started also in Poland in XVI cent. but XVII's grain prices stimulated building up huge farming possesions (like current US farms) instead and compulsory employment in agrary part. Poland reverted from cottage economy. And then - in late XVII - prices of grain came back to normal. Not counting in war-weariness and war destruction and depopulation, because it wasn't so important as the process itself.
Also, note that only 3% of all grain production was exported, mainly to Netherlands.

Effecient military, yes. In Civ standards they lack culture somehow, however.

No, they didn't, this culture used up itself for internal purpouse, integrating country itself - like polonisation of Germans in Polish territories, religious tolerance, christianization of Lithuania, colonization of Ukraine, relations with Russia, Bohemia, Ottomans and Hungary. All of them admired us in some aspects, at some point of time and in XIX century Polish problem was one of important ones in Europe (debates at French and English parliaments, mass manifestations).

It's not just "some" country. Some Americans MAYBE even remember Kosciuszko or Pulawski. They even might find Ladislaus Jagiello statue in Central Park. So, where is the statue of Bismarck in the USA? Or who admires Aztek composer in Japan now? Which great Sumer astronomer actually did change way of thinking about the universe?
I'm not a religious type, but John Paul II also made Vatican something more recognizable (in terms of pop-culture).
Oh! And I also recall that in Civ 2 there was "Solidarnosc" march photo for modern revolutions taking place. Mentioning this because I know that we are discussing here only pop-culture stuff that would fit just this game, not the "how my country is important stuff" because otherwise I could just bore you with hundreds of people important for history who are irrecognizable just like Sten Sture means nothing to statistical Frenchman. It's only pop-culture and I treat that discussion only in theoretical aspect (not like "you must include Poland", cause it's silly), but "I don't recall" is still not an argument, even in this terms (you might not recall just right now because you are to lazy, for instance). "It's so boring" is also a type of lame argument - go bore yourself somewhere else - boredom is a state of the mind after all, not of the real object.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

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.

Yes, in terms of reality it's only about large part of Europe. What I meant was that in XV century most of the world apart from Europe was like "here be dragons" or imaginary maps.

And yes - Poland's chunk of it was hardly significant - just like proper England's chunk in some time, or Prussia's chunk ;]

 

[Tortilla Boy]

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.

And Apollo, and Aphrodite - ideals of beauty after all... (meaning - how European painters saw them) Also, Plato is refered in poetry as "white Plato" sad and starring into stars...

 

[Spearthrower]

Yes, in terms of reality it's only about large part of Europe. What I meant was that in XV century most of the world apart from Europe was like "here be dragons" or imaginary maps.

Obviously only from a European's perspective too! Eurocentrically, it works, but there were detailed Chinese maps of more than just Asia dating back to way beyond this time!

 

[Julian Delphiki]

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!!

Martin Bernal

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

Bad library luck again! Damn!

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

This one, perhaps?

Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca - The great human diasporas : the history of diversity and evolution

Helsinki local libraries have had one copy of this, which is missing . Oh well..

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

Np, i'm familiar with that feeling

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.

I'm just reading 1491: New revelations of the Americas before Columbus by Charles C. Mann. Very interesting.. and quite different from common / older history version of Americas.

Edit

Even better Julian - I found this link

http://www.founders.howard.edu/moorland-spingarn/Antiquit.htm

I also managed to stumble to that page when googled book names you gave .

ON TOPIC: Prime minister of Poland got off from hospital. Poland is mighty powerful since it was on newspapers here in Finland!

 

[Unconquered Sun]

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.

Partly true. However, Poland compared to Portugal or the Netherlands: that's arguable. They are all second tier European civs...so why not include Poland as a second Eastern European civ instead of including two more Western European civs?

 

[cybrxkhan]

Yes, in terms of reality it's only about large part of Europe. What I meant was that in XV century most of the world apart from Europe was like "here be dragons" or imaginary maps.

actually... the Europeans did that too. it was actually the Asian and Middle Easterners that had a better understanding of the world, even if one doesn't believe they discovered America or Austrlia or whatever - if they didn't, how the heck could they know how to walk all the way from Mali to China, like Ibn Battuta, the Morroccan explorer? How did they know how to sail from Ming China all the way to Swahililand, like the Chinese admiral Zheng He? okay, so maybe they didn't make too many maps, but surely that must mean they have pretty good memory.

 

[Angst]

@Tortilla Boy

Well, I find myself agreeing with you, really.

But I want to know... Are you in or out for Poland's inclusion? Because your facts speaks both for the better and worse.

And what was it with the Boring thing? Didn't get it.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Partly true. However, Poland compared to Portugal or the Netherlands: that's arguable. They are all second tier European civs...so why not include Poland as a second Eastern European civ instead of including two more Western European civs?

there is a difference with Poland and those two --> Portugal and netherlands. those two controlled overseas empires.

okay, so then comes the Courland argument.

that was just a little bit of land that didn't last all too long.

Netherlands had territory in Indonesia, and the Americas - the Dutch East and West Indies, their main territories. and thats a lota islands.

Portugal was one of the very first world empires - they contained a few ports in India, China, a good amount of territory in Africa, and, oh yea, Brazil.

so the thing is there are too many European empires. they all have to, eventually, be included, and by then, theres no room for poor Poland. perhaps taking out the HRE or even the Celts would suffice for Poland's place. maybe Carthage too.

 

[Spearthrower]

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.

Agreed - you can find it in most populations around the world

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

Plutarch is pretty much the primary source of European/modern knowledge and all he says on the subject is:

"Alexandron de ton Filippou apragmonos oraion legousi genesthai' tin men gar komin anasesyrthai afto, xanthin de einai'"

"Alexander the son of Philip is reported to have possessed a natural beauty: his hair was wavy and fair."...


Fair could mean blond.... but then again it could mean light brown!

There is of course the Pompeii Mosaic from about 200 b.c.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/pompeii_art_gallery_07.shtml

Which depicts Alexander as a short, brown haired man (there's plenty of gold colouring in the mosaic if they'd wanted to have his hair that colour!!)

 

[Tortilla Boy]

on Egyptians:
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.

Egypt, Inca, Mali, Carthage, Celtia (yeah, right, Slavia...), Korea, Vikings - as far as it goes - territory never had been the core argument for the game.

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.

Yeah, there are so many that HRE was a perfect filler. Just making a counter-argument here

 

[Spearthrower]

Martin Bernal

I'm too busy laughing at my memory to be embarrased!

Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca - The great human diasporas : the history of diversity and evolution

That's definitely not the one, but it is a good read!


I'll sleep on it and see what comes to mind. Worst comes to worst, I'll check the departmental library this weekend. Chulalongkorn University is probably the best library in this country, but I still have doubt about much being there.... as per my point earlier to Nay! Most of it is firmly eastern.

I've got a huge stash of these books and texts (2000+) wedged into boxes in my parents loft! One day I'll fork out the money to have them brought over!

 

[Tortilla Boy]

Obviously only from a European's perspective too! Eurocentrically, it works, but there were detailed Chinese maps of more than just Asia dating back to way beyond this time!

That's right It's ethnocentrical, like those arguments about "that's American game", and actually - I don't know what to think about it, because - if in terms of "how important civilization is" this game should be only about Rome, China and India - as far as it goes for long-term huge-territory populous civs Any European country compared to those Asian monsters is like "tiny bit".

 

[Spearthrower]

That's right It's ethnocentrical, like those arguments about "that's American game", and actually - I don't know what to think about it, because - if in terms of "how important civilization is" this game should be only about Rome, China and India - as far as it goes for long-term huge-territory populous civs Any European country compared to those Asian monsters is like "tiny bit".

and blondey/browny haired Greeks!

 

[Tortilla Boy]

actually... the Europeans did that too. it was actually the Asian and Middle Easterners that had a better understanding of the world, even if one doesn't believe they discovered America or Austrlia or whatever - if they didn't, how the heck could they know how to walk all the way from Mali to China, like Ibn Battuta, the Morroccan explorer? How did they know how to sail from Ming China all the way to Swahililand, like the Chinese admiral Zheng He? okay, so maybe they didn't make too many maps, but surely that must mean they have pretty good memory.

Compared to Arabian maps, or Chinese, European ones are... crappy. At some point, which is Middle Ages especially - they didn't want to see reality as it is, but put all those "Holy Land" stuff, "Here be Garden of Eden", and thought that the World is in the shape of tabernaculum. That's what medieval Europeans were - they knew perspective, but they thought their style to be more "informative". That's an ideology.

Oh, and yes - every argument made here by me is awfully ethnocentric, but only thing I can make about it is to realize it, and agree with everyone who points that out. I think that it comes easier to realize that to non-nationalistic Pole than - let's say - nationalistic American

 

[Unconquered Sun]

there is a difference with Poland and those two --> Portugal and netherlands. those two controlled overseas empires.

okay, so then comes the Courland argument.

that was just a little bit of land that didn't last all too long.

Netherlands had territory in Indonesia, and the Americas - the Dutch East and West Indies, their main territories. and thats a lota islands.

Portugal was one of the very first world empires - they contained a few ports in India, China, a good amount of territory in Africa, and, oh yea, Brazil.

so the thing is there are too many European empires. they all have to, eventually, be included, and by then, theres no room for poor Poland. perhaps taking out the HRE or even the Celts would suffice for Poland's place. maybe Carthage too.

That's already been covered so no need to go thru it again. Rating Portugal/Netherlands oversea might to Poland's continental might is very hard anyway.

The problem is, despite so many European empires already in, half of Europe has Russia as their only represenative in the game, and, let's face it, Russia is reviled in many of the EE nations.

 

[Fugl]

Unconquered Sun:
To wage war backthen all you needed was money, money, and then more money, and those with several colonies got plenty of money and since hired armies was used by all, and troops followed orders as long as payed, therefor i much doubt a Poland could touch Holland in power at that time, as Holland got extremely rich from around 1600 mainly due to trade and imported rare goods from colonies, think only the 3 big could touch them at that time.

not untill around 1800 some clever heads invented nationalism as we know it, pretty flags, songs, poems, glorified history etc etc so ppl would be more loyal and die for less pay than enemy offered, pretty smart that

 

[Tortilla Boy]

@Tortilla Boy

Well, I find myself agreeing with you, really.

Yay, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe"

But I want to know... Are you in or out for Poland's inclusion? Because your facts speaks both for the better and worse.

I tend to think about it in terms of facts accomplished - if developers could put in three European civs (in two cases I agree completly) it means there was still a space for European ones. It's just the idea of HRE that looks puzzling for me. BUT I also realize that it's a matter of political correctness - you can't just put in Poland and it's okay - that's how I see it. It's because of that division in Europe - if you put one Central European country in, why not the others? Denmark, Hungary, Bohemia, Bulgaria (Austria I'm not counting in, because after all it's about civilization, so there is a German civilization already) -those were major cultures some day. Adding a Poland itself ofcourse would be questionable because of Lithuania - well, culturally it did polonise and later on rusify in large parts, but still... even if it's sorta' Austro-Hungarian, Spanic-Catalunyan, Franco-Occitan, Czecho-Moravian, Swedo-Finno-Denmarkian (?) type of question...

So, the question about Poland is actually the question, where all the questions posed about the very nature of the game meet. What is it about? Nations? Cultures? Countries? Then, it probably is about cultures (culture is not a thing with flag though...). It's close to French way of thinking about "civilization" (You can be naturalized Frenchman, member of the nation, but still NOT a member of their civilization). So then, there is this thing about ethnocentrism (you have to choose some perspective - like the thing with "who's got better maps back then?" question). This leads us to problems with political correctness (eventually you have to make some choices). What's annoying in all this, is inconsequence - you give England for English, America for Americans (yeah, Tony Soprano style ), Celtia for Ireland and others, Rome for Italy, Vikings for Scandinavian folk, Russia for Russia (yeah right), Native America for America again... And look - you went so far, making ALL those choices, trying to cover terrain with cultural patchwork, and yet - even though you are of European origin - you COULDN'T solve really hard question about Central and Eastern Europe (with almost every place in West covered) - there is no SINGLE Central-European culture here - it's like... since Stone Age there was only Germans and Russians, period.

So, looking back at facts accomplished, I'm not type of guy who tells people things like: "You suck because there is Portugal, and there is no Poland, and what if...?". I really want to believe, that back there - in Maryland - are people who used their brains, like me, so if they made some decisions, and that's their game, who am I to tell them that? I have no problem with playing either Germany and Russia - either style is interesting, and I like Russia's color (since Warlords). German grey is a little bit dull, but they have nice names for cities (Still thinking in terms of pop-culture game)

Well, I think that only solution to that would be making game Master of Orion customization style - you chose your logo (for the flag), choose your main and secondary color, choose your traits, name your civ and leader (city names would be somehow tile-related), off you go!
I even wondered what it would be like to customize units (chosing weapons, horse/elephant/llama/cow/on foot etc.) and your Wonders (everything measured in hammers and just add up).

Without that, adding Poland just doesn't mean anything. There is nothing so special about yet another cavalry unit, just like there is nothing special about yet another uber-pikeman who's name can't be spelled properly, or even redcoat (like there were no other uniform armies in Europe back then) - it takes to think relative, to came to such a conclusion.

And what was it with the Boring thing? Didn't get it.

It's just that I came back from Cambridge week ago, and people in England seemed to me to be very concerned about stating your bussiness shortly, without this "fenomenological fixation" which is so common about Poles. I mean - we like to talk a lot, delving deeper and deeper into problem. For them, it's like: yes or no. If you don't compell to that, you're just boring. It looked for me as if all they wanted is people not appearing boring to them. So I just generalized here that all Western people avert from reading too long responses (as stated in "Overload and Boredom: Essays on Quality of Life in the Information Society").