Let's Discuss Poland

[TheLastOne36]

Complete, baseless and utter conjencture driven by racially motivated reasons (not necessarily yours but your source's).
There is no way of proving one way or another how much 'foreign blood' is present in Poland, since it would by definition require a 'pure pole' as a subject to contrast to it. And since no such 'pure polish blood' exists ( no bloodline is pure ever, all bloodline is a result of mixing), its a moot comparison, really. For all you know, your great great great great great great great Grandfather could've been a mongol on your dad's side and great great great great great great great great great grandmother could be Danish. You have no way of knowing, unless ofcourse you claim to keep 30-40 generations of history in your family with credible sources. And if you cannot claim that, you cannot make any claim whatsoever about your own 'racial/ethnic Polish purity', let alone your entire nation's.

Anyways, i will make this my last post, it is pretty obvious that it isn't going anywhere. You and a few others here are hell-bent to define history on racist terms, which is not an unknown phenomenon amongst rising Slavic nationalism in most of Eastern Europe. Afterall, defining race as a 'big deal' is a typical European hallmark so i can't say i am surprised either. Its a pity that most of it is based on psuedo-science and pure egotistic nationalism gone mad.

30-40 generations back? Yes i know my families history all the way back to the 10th century.

On my dad's side, (the polish side) my family were miners and farmers near silesia (around my home town of Katowice) for over 500 years, It's hard to find out what the rest of my famylies history was, but before that, alot of it was involved around the military from what i know about my family. Now way back in the 11th century my family was royalty well close to it anyway. One of my grand-dad's in the 11th century, was the royal knight that gaurded the king. Pretty awesome don't you think

My mom's side is unimportant for this arguement.

 

[aronnax]

How can the Huns be part of Polish History? Huns invaded the area that was now Poland, but there wernt any Polish then. Therefore Huns are not part of polish history

 

[Angst]

Hmm.. I think this whole discussion is irrelevant. Whether the Poles have some descendants from the Huns, there is no way they are a 'Hunnic' state. He just left, but...

...Am I the only one being offended by him calling us racists?

 

[Wodan]

The whole thing just seems kind of silly to me. There is no record of it (mixing of blood), therefore it must have happened? Or, there is no record of it, therefore it must NOT have happened, because such a massive genocide (assuming genocide is the only possibility, which it isn't) surely would have been recorded.

The whole thing started as a discussion on how to define a culture, anyway. By the land / geographic area? By the genetic heritage? By a continuous government (even if it changed forms)?

It just seems to me that it's all case-dependent. By that I mean that some "cultures" could be defined by the geographic area. e.g., "Russia" could be defined so that it includes both the Russian (Muscovite) Empire as well as the USSR. That wouldn't bother me. Heck, it's how CIV is now.

On the other hand, "Russia" could be defined as the Russian Empire, and the USSR could be defined separately. That wouldn't bother me either. To some extent, this is what was done with the Holy Roman Empire vs Germany.

Defining a "culture" by genetics seems fine to me, also. That would be like a Jewish Civ. (Not Israel.)

There are other examples. e.g., the Mongolian CIV is broad enough that it probably is intended to include the Golden Horde etc.

No matter how we look at it, it truly is a case-by-case basis.

In the end, what it amounts to is in-game justification. If the developers want a North American civ, and there's some real-world rationalization, then it's fine. That's not to say there are NOT real-world rationalizations against it, that is simply to say that there ARE some arguments in its favor. Anyway, that's not to take off topic.

Poland, no matter how its defined, would be a worthy Civ to include in the future. There are many arguments in its favor.

Wodan

 

[Quildavyr]

Huns are just a turkish tribe

 

[Tortilla Boy]

You'd think that if the Huns were wiped out just 200 years after the terror Atilla unleashed on rest of Europe, the demise of the Huns (extermination) would've been recorded by atleast ONE kingdom/civilization that the Huns brutalized.

Battle of Nedao. Jordanes.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

...Am I the only one being offended by him calling us racists?

No. You are not, Joakim. I've been offended for like 10 pages - apart from "racist", "nationalist", "Euro-centric" stuff, with all this discussion itself - the *very* way which *insults* logic.

 

[0R4NG3]

Anyways, i will make this my last post, it is pretty obvious that it isn't going anywhere. You and a few others here are hell-bent to define history on racist terms, which is not an unknown phenomenon amongst rising Slavic nationalism in most of Eastern Europe. Afterall, defining race as a 'big deal' is a typical European hallmark so i can't say i am surprised either. Its a pity that most of it is based on psuedo-science and pure egotistic nationalism gone mad.

Please keep your accusations and prejudices on the rise of racism in Eastern Europe to yourself. It is not due to racism that people do not agree with you, but due to you not being able to provide sufficient factual or even logical proof to your THEORY. And while most people agree that your theory is possible, you for some reason do not agree that it is only a theory and things could've been different in reality. In fact you just ignore all counter arguments such as what if Huns weren't there when Poles came to Poland.
I have no problem with your definition of culture, it is the specific example of Poles/Huns that I don't agree with.

 

[0R4NG3]

Sorry, false. This is clear fact, evidenced in Hungarian history by documentation and accepted as fact by historic circles around the world.
Hun= Hungarian is where pure fiction lies, not what i said.
If you wish, i can quote you any number of historians on this issue.

I never said that Hungarian = Hun. All I said was that there are other theories and the one you keep quoting is the dominant one. Here's a quote from wikipedia: "The name of Hungary could be a corruption of Ugrian, and the fact that the Eastern Slavs referred to them as Ugrin (pl. Ugrove) seemed to confirm that [1]. However, current literature favors the hypothesis that the Turkic "On-ogur" ("Ten arrows" or "Ten tribes") is the origin for the word Hungarian [2] [3] [4]."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar

 

[Tortilla Boy]

...but due to you not being able to provide sufficient factual or even logical proof to your THEORY. And while most people agree that your theory is possible, you for some reason do not agree that it is only a theory and things could've been different in reality...

Theory is something grounded. Either by deduction, or strong induction. Actually, all theories inquire both. But: theory requires sufficient proof and simply can't be different from reality (as far as we don't go relativistic).

It's hypothesis: "Since there is no evidence- historical or legendary- of a Slavic genocide of huns, the default position must be that Huns & Slavs mixed", and it's peculiar one, taking "no evidence" as basis.

My problem with it: It implies that only culture of which we can speak is culture of some location, like "culture of Appenine Peninsula", or "culture of Northern European Lowlands" (Netherlands, Luxembourg, part of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Kaliningrad") and it's arbitrary as any other definition, because distinctive basis taken (geographical location as basis to culture) is arbitrary.

 

[DemonMaster]

Wow, haven't this thread been stopped yet because of boredom? I'm impressed. Do you guys have time to play the game?

 

[onedreamer]

The problem with Huns is that, although I agree with Ahimsadharma that they also took part in the history of the lands that are now Poland, they weren't originary from there, that was just one of the many territories they conquered during their secular migrations. So it would be wrong to associate Huns with -only- Poland. Fine if there's a Civ called Huns, or a civ called Poland, but one cannot be the same as the other.
Bottom line, Ahimsadharma, you should stress on the fact that Poland has a history rich enough that you don't need to go back to the Dark Ages (a period from which we have few historical records, and several legends only) and name Huns in order to give it some prestige, and you should try to do it with a slightly less aggressive stance, without calling everyone a racist, otherwise they won't consider your words as worth reading, since people are easily offended, especially on a forum where they read words and sentences with their own feelings and not with the writer's.

@Wodan: Russia is not the same as the USSR in Civ4. It was so in Civ3, but in Civ4 there aren't cities from the ex soviet republics.

 

[LuKo]

@Wodan: Russia is not the same as the USSR in Civ4. It was so in Civ3, but in Civ4 there aren't cities from the ex soviet republics.

Let's say hello to Stalin, the Tzar of Russia!

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Yes i know my families history all the way back to the 10th century.

Really ? So you know the mothers and fathers of every generation preceeding you in both your fathers & mother's side of the family ? That too for a thousand years ? ( that is 10*4 = 40 generations on average).
I find that a tall claim really, since not even the ROYALTIES can show their descendance with that much credibility and the Royalties of Europe have far better documentation than anyone else when it comes to descendance.

My mom's side is unimportant for this arguement.

No, it isn't. You are equal product of both the chains.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Bottom line, Ahimsadharma, you should stress on the fact that Poland has a history rich enough that you don't need to go back to the Dark Ages

I cannot stress any such thing because that is not the objective conclusion.
Poland's history is, from all angles, a 'small fish in a big pond'. Dark ages (1000 years ago in Europe) is a rather recent time in history for some/most cultures who's historical grasp is manyfold greater than that of Poland or much of Europe.

but due to you not being able to provide sufficient factual or even logical proof to your THEORY

False. I have provided more proof than Polish nationalists here who claim a total break from Hunnic history.
As i said, the proof is circumstantial but far more robust than Polish nationalism.
For one, the Huns disappear without a TRACE in Europe. This was at a time when copious amounts of literature was dedicated to the Huns. History is a PROOF that when societies are absorbed into another in a slow but peaceful process (such as mostly through intermarrige with a larger group), it goes unrecorded but if a society is wiped out, it IS recorded.
As i said, there is far more logic in saying that the Huns got absorbed into the Slavic fold than saying they magically disappeared in 200 years and nobody in Europe saw it fit to write about the genocide of the Huns, especially when they were very busy writing about genocides done by the Huns just 200 years before !

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Battle of Nedao. Jordanes.

The battle of Nedao says nothing whatsoever about Slavs riding around Hunnic villages and burning them/killing all huns.
It talks about an armed combat between soldiers, not an entire society wiped out.
Unless ofcourse you believe the far more ridiculous line of thoght that Huns brought everyone to war, including women, old men & children.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

and you should try to do it with a slightly less aggressive stance, without calling everyone a racist

How is it not racist to define history exclusively from a racial/ethnic standpoint, given that by doing so, your entire concept of history is a racist one ?

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Rome never reached anywhere close to poland, i wouldn't understand why they would record this happening then

If you bothered looking at the map, you'd realize that Poland isnt very far from Danube river that defined the northern boundary of Rome.
And i find it a strange claim that a culture like ancient Italians (Romans) who knew of people as far and away as India didn't know their own backyard literally.
Thats like saying Ming Dynasty China knew all about Byzantium, thousands of kms away but had never heard of Japan.

 

[LuKo]

Rome never reached anywhere close to poland, i wouldn't understand why they would record this happening then.

Have you heard about amber? Rome liked amber.

 

[Wodan]

As i said, there is far more logic in saying that the Huns got absorbed into the Slavic fold than saying they magically disappeared in 200 years and nobody in Europe saw it fit to write about the genocide of the Huns, especially when they were very busy writing about genocides done by the Huns just 200 years before !

Well, if someone were to commit genocide, it makes sense to kill all the witnesses too.

Honestly, though, the most logical explanation is that the Huns just up and moved.

It gets friggin' cold in Poland. It's a lot warmer down south of the Tatras, down in, you'd never guess .... HUNGARY.

And the poor Slavs, freezing their butts off in even colder parts of the world, think Poland is a paradise, especially since it's totally empty of people, so they just move right in and take up shop. The rest is (recorded) history.

Wodan