Let's Discuss Poland

Status
Not open for further replies.
Macedonia today isnt excatly Macedonia 2000 years ago. It is more where Thessalonica is today I think
 
Saim said:
That directly contradicts my point, so it's impossible for you to be in agreement with me.

"India" is a modern nation. "South Asia" or "the Indian Subcontinent" would be more fitting. Macedonia was not Greek, it was Greek-influenced, but they where not Greek. Of course, they where assimilated into Greece, but that does not make them Greek.
Click to expand...
Historically, during the time in question, Macedonia was in fact part of Greek culture.

In Civ, the culture called "India" includes the whole of the Indian subcontinent. All precursor peoples are included under this umbrella. Like it or not, that's what Firaxis did.

Likewise, the culture called "Greece" includes all Greek peoples, both from the Peloponesus as well as all the Dorians, Illyrians, Macedonians, Thracians, Lydians, etc. Like it or not, Alexander is considered Greek in Civ, and that's the context of the discussion here.

Wodan
 
Since Warlords, I've visited this forum many a time to gain tactics and strategy for the benefit of my game. I've also been following this thread for some time with great interest: to point where I actually joined the forum.

While I honestly thought the idea of Poland being included was just silly at the beginning, my opinion has shifted. I dusted off some history books and looked at Poland more seriously. Obviously it just isn't practical to include every single national or ethnic group in the game, and Poland doesn't have the immediately impact of the core Civs that return every version of this game: but neither do many of the Civs in BtS right now either. Of course, Firaxis has to draw the line somewhere and Poland's absence has never bothered me before (I'm not Polish, Slavic or :lol: Hunnic, I'm Cajun/Creole).

That is until the Holy Roman Empire was included. With this exception, I think the inclusions of Civs have been judicious and appropriate. I don't know exactly what the criteria are for Civ inclusion, but I have an idea of the motivations behind HRE's induction. Firaxis wanted to add a continental European Civ (in contrast to Portugal and Netherlands were both big sea powers). Among other things, the HRE was a mistake because:
  • It was politically, militarily and culturally impotent. It didn't exert influence on its neighbors, it's neighbors dominated it. It was basically a timeshare for the Hapsburgs, WittleBachers and Hohenzollerns. The HRE was controlled by dynasties on the outside, while the only time 'royal blood' from within the HRE left was to add a little generic variety to the established inbred royal families of Europe.
  • It's redundant: the Holy Roman Empire was just a collection of German and Italian states. The HRE was basically a storage bin for land and people that are already represented by Germany and Italy (Roman Empire) in Civilization. It's not like the Holy Romans had their own cultural identity. They didn't even speak their own language.
The HRE was large and it existed for centuries, but it wasn't any sort of entity that not already identified by France, the Roman Empire or Germany. It's the equivalent of adding the Soviet Union or the CIS while Russia is already included.
My point isn't really to bash Firaxis for adding the Holy Empire Empire. My issue is the inclusion of a redundant Civ that has less place in the game than Poland. Here's a comparison of Poland vs the Holy Roman Empire:
  • Cultural Identity: there are Poles. There were no 'Holy Romans', there were Bavarians, Saxons, Prussians and other Germans, Milanese, Genoans and other Italic peoples.
  • Cultural Integrity: after being occupied and erased from the map several times, they reemerged as Poland. After centuries to form some semblance of a national identity, the HRE gets totally overrun by Napoleon and less than a century later cartographers officially certify what everyone already knew: the HRE was really Germany (and Austria) and northern Italy.
  • Military: as other posters have pointed out, the Poles made their the military presence felt as far away as Ukraine. Any military activity in or from the HRE was Hessian, Saxon, Swiss or Prussian and none of it occurred under the auspices of an Imperial Army.
  • Politically: Poland was a county or at least a politically homogeneous fief and it had a capitol. HRE was a collection states. It was like a watered down version of NATO.
If any other European Civs should be in the game, I would nominate Serbia, Bulgaria or Poland. If I had to pick one, I would go with Poland.
 
While I don't disagree with your assessment, I'd use your rationalisations to conclude that Austria should then be included instead.
 
Spearthrower said:
While I don't disagree with your assessment, I'd use your rationalisations to conclude that Austria should then be included instead.
Click to expand...

Seconded regarding to Austria, but Poland would be a dang fine 'continential power'. And where are my Winged Hussars? :cry: :lol:
 
That's what I like about you guys - the thread has been dead for four days and you managed to bring it back to life using the same old arguments :)

I might as well pitch in: Austria is a worthy addition, but it is neither Eastern European nor Slavic so Poland is a better choice :p
 
0R4NG3 said:
I might as well pitch in: Austria is a worthy addition, but it is neither Eastern European nor Slavic so Poland is a better choice :p
Click to expand...

Well Poland doesn't begin with an A... so that's why we need Austria!! :lol:
 
Spearthrower said:
For enlightenment purposes on the history of Macedonia - it's a bit nationalistic and you have to read past the bias... but that's true of anything anyway

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/
Click to expand...


It seems like you're being rather diplomatic about this. Reading past the nationalistic bias on that site is like....give me an analogy here....combing the fleas off of a 1000 camels.
 
Dennis_Moore said:
It seems like you're being rather diplomatic about this. Reading past the nationalistic bias on that site is like....give me an analogy here....combing the fleas off of a 1000 camels.
Click to expand...


I totally agree... but....

All history is biased.... when something is obviously biased and where its bias lies is apparent, then it's easier to strip the facts from the bone.

They actually present a lot of good facts in a fairly well summaried position... it's their analysis that needs to be read past.

Really, a lot of what they're saying needs to be said to counter a lot of popular bias on the other side. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. While my particular ancient history area at B.A. level was pre-Hellenistic Greece.... even I can't determine precisely what level Macedonia was Greek culture and not Greek culture.... there's too many years of exchanging ideas and assimilating each others culture - just like any neighbours in the history of the world.

A line on a map rarely means anything valuable to the people living on that line. Generally, they see the people to the north as wierd and barbaric and the people to the south as wierd and barbaric. So the truth goes.... but we thousands of years later want to see black and white.
 
Macedonians may or may not have been Greek by blood, but they were certainly hellenistic in culture.

and what does that have to do with Poland?
 
Spearthrower said:
I totally agree... but....

All history is biased.... when something is obviously biased and where its bias lies is apparent, then it's easier to strip the facts from the bone.

They actually present a lot of good facts in a fairly well summaried position... it's their analysis that needs to be read past.

Really, a lot of what they're saying needs to be said to counter a lot of popular bias on the other side. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. While my particular ancient history area at B.A. level was pre-Hellenistic Greece.... even I can't determine precisely what level Macedonia was Greek culture and not Greek culture.... there's too many years of exchanging ideas and assimilating each others culture - just like any neighbours in the history of the world.

A line on a map rarely means anything valuable to the people living on that line. Generally, they see the people to the north as wierd and barbaric and the people to the south as wierd and barbaric. So the truth goes.... but we thousands of years later want to see black and white.
Click to expand...

You make some excellent points there. I agree that some historical "truths" really should be questioned and much of the ancient/classical history we know to be true, is in fact the greek or roman version (for example, did the Carthiginans really eat their own children?).

Giving that macedonian site another look, I admit it does offer some interesting information if you can avoid being nauseated or anaphylactic by the blatantly shameless nationalism.;)
 
I have a better idea...

Let's not discuss Poland
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
AI League 2.0
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Thrasybulos
T
T
AI Survivor - Alternate Histories AI Ranking
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
23K
Thrasybulos
T
Plains-Cow
Sullla's AI Survivor Season Eight - Begins 31 May 2024 at 1200 EST
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
danjuno
danjuno
F
Unrestricted Leaders - synergies? (2023 edition)
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
R82
R82
F
How i provoked AIs to declare wars (via some very weird but working method)
Replies
13
Views
3K
drewisfat
drewisfat
Back
Top Bottom