Let's Discuss Poland

[cybrxkhan]

HRE baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad

 

[Angst]

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

Hey, I got the most of it at least

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").

I just want to say, I don't find your posts boring, actually they are either amusing, intelligent or good to read.

And regarding the pop culture, the real reason why I personally want Poland in is the Winged Hussar. It would be sooooo awesome.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

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.

It reminds me the story of Swiss trying to conquer Italy in some time. So they hired up some mercs and they even had some success, but eventually all their armies died out because of syphilis (well, brothels were places of special interest in this offensive). That's how it goes for mercs. It's no wonder either that they were the first ones to abandon battlefield.

With Poles things are more complicated - as I stated here earlier - because they, for the most part, fought amongst themseles. Up to the point where even national heroes are traitors at some points - like so advertised here John Sobieski, king of Poland, hero of Chocim siege by Ottomans, saw his interest in fighting together with Swedes in Deluge. He hasn't sieged Częstochowa because together with Swedes he headed back in Prussia's direction. Polish miliary system was quite different from Western one, mainly because of different strategic placement, large forests and lack of big cities.

*** OT ****

By the way (forest thing) - it's quite funny that in Civ you can build huge armadas even though you live in place without even tiny inch of forest. Most of trans-Atlantic empires relied on wood from Scandinavia and P-L Commonwealth.

 

[Angst]

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...

Glad you added Denmark, just to say. Many people in here doesn't seem to know that it was a severe powerful nation once.

And it's Swedish-Norwegian-Danish... I think...

 

[Tortilla Boy]

and blondey/browny haired Greeks!

Let's change Alex's hair template to blonde one - like in all those portrayals Soooo kawaiiiii

 

[Tortilla Boy]

And it's Swedish-Norwegian-Danish... I think...

Damn, how could I forget about Norway? (I like their cinematography) Hm, still not sure whether there is some relation between Finns and Vikings (we had Vikings on Polish island of Wolin - one on Polish-German border, and probably somewhere in Mazury region).

 

[Angst]

Damn, how could I forget about Norway? (I like their cinematography) Hm, still not sure whether there is some relation between Finns and Vikings (we had Vikings on Polish island of Wolin - one on Polish-German border, and probably somewhere in Mazury region).

I wrote Sweden only, as Finland was just a Swedish region for a lot of years.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

I wrote Sweden only, as Finland was just a Swedish region for a lot of years.

Yep, but still no Sweden in civ You can say that Sweden is there because Vikings are. Then, question is if you can say that there is Finland because Finland was part of Sweden, which in differen time (not being Sweden back then ) was part of Viking Empire. So there could be Hungary even - as part of Austria, which was part of Germany 1938-45

 

[Angst]

Yep, but still no Sweden in civ You can say that Sweden is there because Vikings are. Then, question is if you can say that there is Finland because Finland was part of Sweden, which in differen time (not being Sweden back then ) was part of Viking Empire. So there could be Hungary even - as part of Austria, which was part of Germany 1938-45

OMG confusion

Actually, if more civs were to be added in Europe, it should be one of the two - Sweden or Poland - Because Sweden is more regionally representative than Denmark (The counterpart). Or it could be named Kalmar... ...and then again, Poland because of birdie mounts. I say no Austria because of the HRE.

But then again, we're all represented by Ethiopia.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

Because Sweden is more regionally representative than Denmark (The counterpart).

Naaa It's because of cute colours. I have no shame in admitting that

Or it could be named Kalmar...

"OMG, you plaing that Fin/Org Kalmari again?"

But on second thought... Poland could be Kielbasa That's how "Kalmar" sounds to me, even though I know Union stuff

...and then again, Poland because of birdie mounts.

We also have nice colours

I say no Austria because of the HRE.

Them not having nice colours... atrocious

But then again, we're all represented by Ethiopia.

Caught my logic there

 

[Unconquered Sun]

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.

I wonder who the three big are...

As far as the 1600s go, the Ottoman Empire was one of the biggest and it was Poland that is most responsible for the Ottoman defeat at Vienna (1683).

 

[Fugl]

Tortilla Boy:

I bet the itallians put those hookers there could also be answer for new units for thoose in the `want-more-women-in-civ-thread`

Anyhow, but, yea, the hired ones was prolly more unreliable, and often left early if odds began swing too much against them, however according to what i dusted up the swede army of gustavus adolphusII fex was upto 80% foreigners to illustrate how much it was sometimes used, and its potential

And yes, the tree thing is actually bit wierd, havent thought bout that before, maybe it could be a resource somehow

Unconquered Sun: France, Spain, England imo outshines Ottomans from around 1600, Spain even earlier, England+France maybe slightly later, mainly due to Otto`s loss of its control of trade between Asia and Europe, but even more devaluations of its currency due to Spains ton and tons of silver & gold on market from America, tho youre right also, Ottoman`s remained a large power long time still

 

[Breunor]

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

I agree to a large degree , by 1600, the Netherlands were very rich and powerful. this gave them a lot of political power as well, but its a little different from the pure military power that Poland had (and Poland had a pretty good economy).

Remember, though, that conquest was difficult at this period by anyone, as defensive fortifications were very well developed, especially in the densly packed West. In the east, where Poland was, a large mobile army was very important. So the Netherlands would have trouble with the Polish cavalry in Poland; likewise, the Poles would have trouble with the Dutch forts while the Dutch controlled the seas.

But your point about money is correct -- there were always people to hire at this point in hostory. The 30 Years' War were very strongly influenced by these mercenaries. And the Netherlands became very close to being a great power, but they lost the position to England.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Really, quit that Attila stuff, there weren't even Slavic people back then in Europe (that occured in VI cent).

It is quite irrelevant whether they were slavic people or not. They were polish because Poland is a geographical definition. I find your definition of what is and what is not Polish history to be boderline racism, since i cannot think one good reason for your thinking. According to you, if LA undergoes a demographic shift due to mexicans marrying the rest, it'd make LA's history seperate from 1800s when it was a white town. Thats BS, really.

Simply put - no.

Thank you for the correction but my initial point still stands- Poland's political history hardly justifies the claim of being a part of biggest empire of mankind, except for the Russian vassalage period.

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).

Well that shows a few things:

1. Polish people's definition of 'known world' was severely limited for its time
2. I agree with your definition of population based power projection (instead of simple land area) but by this definition, Poland falls even further- hell, entire Europe does, since for most of known history of mankind, India & China dwarves everyone else in population.

 

[Tortilla Boy]

Anyhow, but, yea, the hired ones was prolly more unreliable, and often left early if odds began swing too much against them, however according to what i dusted up the swede army of gustavus adolphusII fex was upto 80% foreigners to illustrate how much it was sometimes used, and its potential

This one is nice picture of battles between us just a bit before Adolphus reign. Issue with him is that things changed because of Swedish invention - musket instead of arquebus (100 years before use in other European countries) which could be loaded three times faster, flintlock and cheaper ammunition. When it comes to muskets it can be mercs, but still not enough against Poland as history had shown Battle of Kircholm itself is mainly interesting because it was first Cannae maneuver battle in AD Era.

This one to add up to the picture. This is pre-hussar epoque, victory achieved mainly by using Tatar and Hussite tactics.

This one this one is interesting because of numbers

This one to show that in Poland's case it was almost always a matter of traitors when it came to defeats (also - mark that it's just pop-culture view that Russians fight in swarms - forces are comparable)

Final one to show that there was no swarm of Soviets, just comparable forces (both unprepared) but it's often depicted as "commies all over the place scenario for Europe".

 

[Ahimsadharma]

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

This argument falls flat for several reasons:

1. If price of ink was a factor, you wouldn't have gold-encursted amphoras or semi-precious stones being used for frescoe depictions. Thats like saying you have enough money to buy a BMW but your toaster is unpainted because you couldnt afford a painted/enamelled one.
simply doesnt add up.

2. The most expensive dye in world, at any given time, was Tyrian Purple, which was a much sought after color in the ancient mediterranean ( The Roman senators & high positioned military leaders valued this color as well) and source to much of the power of Phoenicia. But even tyrian purple was nowhere expensive as producing an inlaid metal work of art or frescoes.
Frescoes are expensive business, especially in the ancient world. Whoever builds them/built them did not have financial concerns, be it in Greece or be it in Antarctica.

3. Plato and other Greek Philosophers/Historians comment on the nature of Greek society back in their times and one thing that is very evident amongst Greeks is that they were mostly brunettes (much like Greece today).
This is because one of the Greek Philosophers (his name escapes me at the moment) wrote extensively about racism in Greek society back then and one of the basis of this racism was on hair color.
Blonde jokes for eg, started off as derogatory comments and superiorist views of Greeks towards their blond-headed neighbours at North ( Illyrians, Celts, Germainic tribes, Slavs, etc). The author even mentions this 'blonde derogatory jokes' aspect being a key part of Greek military strategy as well: By repeatedly making derogatory remarks about blonde-ness at start of combat, they often got the 'barbarians from the north' to charge them in frustration - it is well known that most of non-mediterranean European warfare in Greek/Roman times were uncoordinated 'hoarde principle' with liberal sprinklings of horsemen ( though certain tribes Greeks encountered were almost exclusively horse-based military). The author mentions that the Phalanx was virtually impregnable when charged by infantry or cavalry and the Greek racism towards blonde hair often played into their hands perfectly- by getting the 'barbarian hoardes' to charge the Phalanx, Greeks essentially tilted the balance of the battle in their favour virtually at the start.


4. You will also find that the overwhelming majority of potraits and Frescoes of ancient Greece, even the ones depicting their heroes and Gods, were brunettes. This wasn't due to lack of blonde-dye or inability to afford it, since Greeks had no problems drawing 'barbarians' from the north with blonde hair, in several frescoes, outnumbering the Greek 'heroes'.

5. The oldest civilization in Greece- the Minoan culture- also depicts this ' Greek brunettes vs Blonde barbarians' in most of its artwork and all evidence of the Minoan culture suggests that they were a small but extremely rich city-state culture, based essentially on trade & trading principles.

 

[aronnax]

So we went from Poland to American Ignorance to America Vs China to Greek hair to race of ancient egyptians to Greek Hair again and back to Poland.

The forum works in mysterious ways......

 

[Tortilla Boy]

(and Poland had a pretty good economy)

Not in 1600s. War with Sweden is good picture for that - they managed to take almost whole country with forces like 2x12 000 just because organizing troops in Poland was always such a pain in the ass But also war with Turkey - sending like... 10 000 people to attack them (because Austria said so), getting your ass beaten sorrily, "Oh my God! Oh my God 300 000 Turk are coming for us", finnaly getting those old geezers in Sejm to finance some army year after. God bless us it's such a long way from Constantinopole to Podolia

Remember, though, that conquest was difficult at this period by anyone, as defensive fortifications were very well developed, especially in the densly packed West.

Money could always buy you the way through those walls...
Once...
Twice...
Then patience factor came in...

Siege of Breda is one of funny stuff in history, because it's one of first tourist venues apart from Eternal City lasting -in reality- for almost 20 years. Military men came from all Europe to see it, from both sides - you could pay to those laying siege to tell you how to lay sieges, and then you could pay defenders to let you in and have a interesting discussion on defence part Then, they even printed manuals on sieges, lol.

When it comes to the Dutch I tend to think that they are natural born "oooh, shiny thingies with ciphers on them" sort of people. It came as experience to me while being employed in Dutch tax-recovery venue here in Poland. I admire them for making me convinced that it pays off to work for them for 2 euro/h. It takes Creativity to do that. LOL. Damn, I might even give it a try and play some Dutch Honourable Civ play with a rule that I can't build any other improvement than cottage (something like Mansa Moneybags stuff)

likewise, the Poles would have trouble with the Dutch forts while the Dutch controlled the seas.

I think that they just could fight all the way through HRE if they ever found themselves in fierce need of conquering Netherlands. Easier way would be just to buy it. j/k

 

[Tortilla Boy]

It is quite irrelevant whether they were slavic people or not. They were polish because Poland is a geographical definition. I find your definition of what is and what is not Polish history to be boderline racism, since i cannot think one good reason for your thinking. According to you, if LA undergoes a demographic shift due to mexicans marrying the rest, it'd make LA's history seperate from 1800s when it was a white town. Thats BS, really.

Well, if Tenochtitlan just gets slaughtered it becomes Mexico. Geographical definitions are just that. Definitions. Bound to be changed by those who write them. Same goes for Gdańsk - I'm this kind of Pole who agrees with statement so fiercely defended by (puzzles my why) British historians that it was Danzig for most of the time (at least "time of interest"). The reason that I agree is because I know the story behind that. In 1308 it's Gdańsk, because it's city built by some Slavic people in VII cent, later on given Polish laws and consecrated. Then, in 1308 Brandenburgian Germans come, burn this city to the ground during the Saint Dominic's Fair, killing all of 10 000 inhabitants. They find a new city, on their law, binding it to their new sovereign, consecrated by different bishop. And it's Danzig. Later on, when Poles recapture it's Danzig they take, just because it's different city in the same place. Actually, it was both Danzig and Gdańsk until 1945 when Germans were just expelled. Now it's only Gdańsk. Which one is more justified is one of those questions without answers I think.

Here is some delicious discussion on "What is Pommerania?" and where it starts. I mean, Lordie, they even had to vote the thing (at site's bottom).

Thank you for the correction but my initial point still stands- Poland's political history hardly justifies the claim of being a part of biggest empire of mankind, except for the Russian vassalage period.

I think that most of the people living under some empire's sun don't conceive it to be different sun than the one they saw other day... Great Britain was the biggest empire in history of human kind if one believes wikipedia, and thinks that it makes some difference to those penguin somewhere in north Canada if they are ruled by Queen Victoria or Her Royal Highness Princess Adelaide of Places Too Many To State. Thinking in territorial manner would make one think that Greenland owner - Denmark - was monster-size empire in XX century

[EDIT: Things change when they make you speak their language, and some nasty things happen if you don't - like your son taken into Tzar's or Kaiser's army for 25 years. This is the case of Poland.]

Well that shows a few things:

1. Polish people's definition of 'known world' was severely limited for its time

They had no Wikipedia back then

2. I agree with your definition of population based power projection (instead of simple land area) but by this definition, Poland falls even further- hell, entire Europe does, since for most of known history of mankind, India & China dwarves everyone else in population.

Just like today's Germany would be small country compared to Indonesia (still, no signs of it in Civ ). Thinking in measures of the Universe would make us come to the conclusion that we are waging ant wars back here

 

[Tortilla Boy]

The author even mentions this 'blonde derogatory jokes' aspect being a key part of Greek military strategy as well: By repeatedly making derogatory remarks about blonde-ness at start of combat, they often got the 'barbarians from the north' to charge them in frustration.

This author finds barbarians smarter than me, as I find myself unable to understand what my Greek Workers tell me when I play Greeks
Maybe they had some funny blonde jokes painted on their shields? Certeinly it wasn't written jokes, 'cause I doubt anyone except Greeks being able to read whole sentences in their alphabet