Petition to add Poland

[Hitti-Litti]

But Germany already fills the place of Holy Roman Empire. Germany shouldn't be a civilization if HRE would be in. And Frederick the Great wasn't the leader of Germany, but Prussia.

 

[a4phantom]

I don't know the literal meaning of "civilization", but IMHO a civilization has:

-has been independent for a long time
-is some kind "unique", it has it's own language, culture and/or unique history
-has had a major impact on either present world or historical world.

America fills only the last one, but for example England fulfills all of them. It has been independent for a long time, it has it's own language(though similar to other Europeans), culture and history, and has had a major impact on present world.

When was there an independent Greece? Aside from modern Greece, which is not what people talk about, Greece was either a collection of nationstates or a part of the Macedonian empire. America has been independent for two centuries, and in fact was the only country who's independence was never threatened in the 20th century. America has its own culture and uniqe history. I'm not arguing that Greece shouldn't be a civ, *obviously* it should, but of all the people who render judgement on which nations are "not civs", no one has been able to provide much of a definition for that exclusive club.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

OK. You want to nitpick.

America has states. States have their own laws. But it is thought as independent.

Greece united against Persia, when they tried to conquer all Greece. And actually Alexander was Macedonian, but it deserves to be a civilization.

Without English America wouldn't be America. America has the same language than England. Unique history? I agree, no other country has decided it's state language by voting. If German would have gotten some more votes, your native language would be German. And your culture? Well, it's kinda unique.

 

[a4phantom]

OK. You want to nitpick.

No, I want people to justify the claims they make instead of spouting random prejudices.

America has states. States have their own laws. But it is thought as independent.

Before responding to that I'll let you think over whether you really think the fact that America has administrative subdivisions is analogous to the Greek city-states. Let me know if you want to commit to that, then we can argue it.

Greece united against Persia, when they tried to conquer all Greece. And actually Alexander was Macedonian, but it deserves to be a civilization.

Britain, America, France, and the Soviet Union united against Germany. That would be an interesting "civilization" indeed. I asked you to list the years in which Greece was unified and independent.

Without English America wouldn't be America. America has the same language than England.

Every nation grows out of what came before. Without German (and French), English wouldn't be English and England wouldn't be England. England is a fusion of its conquerors, which has evolved on its own, plus serious influence from conquered populations. America is also a fusion of its natives, conquerors, conquered and immigrants. So what? And I'd love to see you tell the English that their American cousins speak the same language as them.

Unique history? I agree, no other country has decided it's state language by voting. If German would have gotten some more votes, your native language would be German. And your culture? Well, it's kinda unique.

Do you really think that choosing English as the language was the highpoint of American history?

 

[paperchase417]

The Byzantine Empire was actually just the Eastern Roman Empire until some historian changed the name in the 1800s to The Byzantine Empire After the city Byzantium. They spoke Greek.

Oh yeah...
civ·i·li·za·tion (sv-l-zshn)
n.
1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
3. The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
4. Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
5. Modern society with its conveniences:

 

[Elandal]

I agree on the Germany / HRE / Prussia issue completely

Europe has seen several coalitions and alliances, some called countries, some called by other names. Current representation of Europe in cIV is mostly OK, although I don't agree with having leaders of recent past, and indeed Germany isn't needed - more interesting choices would've been available. And please, why caricature Vikings Scandinavia could've been represented by generic Scandinavia, concentrating on the viking era, without horns, maybe even with some other leader choice(s) than Ragnar. Or maybe by Sweden, with eg. Gustav III as leader.

America is obviously named wrongly. It's either USA or it's not USA, but there is no "American civilization" - there have been distinct groups in America, both north and south (Atzecs and Incas are in at least).

And what about Poland? Honestly, I don't care enough.. Maybe Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth could be included, but Poland post that time not really.

 

[a4phantom]

What the people who are so worked up about this don't realize is that there is no such thing as a defined "civilization", and that Sid and Co. did not choose nations according to rigorous guidelines of historical and cultural importance. They went for flashy, recognizable names. That's why the United States is America, Prussia is Germany, the Scandinavians are Vikings, the Zulus are included rather than Ethiopia, etc. etc. This is not a history lesson, it's a history flavored game.

 

[Elandal]

Yes, cIV is still just a game. However, since the first Civ, it has had information about history, cultures, and so on. While the game itself doesn't model reality (neither historical nor present day), being rather an empire building / strategy game with predictable and easily understood game mechanics that have real life counterparts and correlations, the background information presented (if anyone bothers to read it all - I do) is generally quite good.

So if the background information is more of a history lesson, then the choice of civs and leaders, UBs and UUs, is IMHO more part of the historical than the game side.

Most likely reasons for including some flashy names is the appeal to .. uhh, less than civilized, game community

 

[paperchase417]

MMMMMMM History Flavored Game... aghghgh (Droolz)

 

[Eskel]

The historical background was the thing that attracted me to the 1st Civ. I dont know how you were playing that wonderful game, but I was reading almost all descriptions, and that taught me a lot.

By now it is even more important for me than before. I wish Firaxians kept educational aspect of civ series, not turning this into just-for-fun another strategy game.

 

[a4phantom]

I enjoy the history skin the game is wrapped in, and the tacked on bits of factual information. All I meant (and I believe all I said) was that Civ does not emulate history, and that it's silly to get worked up debating the game's obedience to true history. There are no historical criteria that a group must meet, according to Sid Meier's team of history, science, anthropology and religious studies experts, to qualify as a true "civilization". They clearly went for recognizable names, military power, artistic and scientific achievements, etc.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Öjevind Lång thinks that Vikings conquered England but English do not confirm the same - btw who was a better Viking, William or Hårdråda?

Öjevind Lång does not think that Vikings conquered England. Öjevind Lång thinks Danes conquered part of England (the Danelaw), and that at a later date the Dane Canute became king of Denmark, Norway and England. The English concur.

The question of who was "the better Viking - William or Harald Hårdråde?" does not arise. William the Conqueror was not a Viking at all, merely the descendant of "Vikings" (Danes) who had settled in France and given their name ("Northmen") to Normandy. In fact, Harald Hårdråde wasn't strictly speaking a Viking either, since the Vikings were parties of Scandinavian pirates or traders whereas Harald was a Norwegian King who tried to conquer England.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Chinese provinces are way more dissimilar culturally than European countries. But it seems that the perception of a group of people that they are the same civilization, that perception itself, is part of one's civilization, possible a sufficient one. I would even dare to go so far as to saying that the converse is not true. If I had to split Europe into civilizations, I'd allow Roman, German, Greek, Russian. I don't really feel England, France, Spain (close though, for their Moorish influances) or Poland has a deep enough impact, but of course, I'm asking to be flamed even though I'm just trying to voice my academic opinion. Problem is, recent influances are often mistaken for being deeper influances, even though the historical forces have pretty much shaped most of our culture today. Similarly, the Incans deserve to be a civilization, the Aztecs not really.

Having said that, I do believe the USA does deserve to be a civilization. Although brief, their isolation helps a little. They definitely have just enough culturally to be a civilization, but I won't go into detail. Poland, on the other hand, did hold a lot of military power for a long time in history, but culturally they didn't move from medieval to Renaissance quickly enough to avoid being shadowed by their neighbours, and medieval kingdoms aren't as culturally influancial as nation-states, with consequences. I swear they COULD'VE been very powerful, but they did miss their chances.

Perhaps this is a little complicated... I guess an example should better explain my standard. So, if I were to represent the CIV4 civilizations (with expansion):

Incans, Native American (replace Aztecs), USA, Roman, Greek (covers Carthage), German (covers vikings), Russian, Egyptian, Arabian, Babylonian (replace Persia), Indian, Chinese (covers Korean), Japanese, Mali, Mongolian, Zulu, Celtic

Ones I feel deserves, but not included: Siamese, Polynesian

Ottomans... they're not really a civilization, but rather an even mix of great civilizations. Like the Mogul dynasty, they ruled, but were eventually absorbed by real civilizations.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Incans, Native American (replace Aztecs), USA, Roman, Greek (covers Carthage), German (covers vikings), Russian, Egyptian, Arabian, Babylonian (replace Persia), Indian, Chinese (covers Korean), Japanese, Mali, Mongolian, Zulu, Celtic

Why would Greek cover Carthage? It was founded by Phoenicians. Also, German covers vikings? WHAT? There might be some logic to say Russia would cover vikings, even if thats almost as flawed too. I'm not even gonna go to Chinese/Korean.

 

[Vertico]

If I had to split Europe into civilizations, I'd allow Roman, German, Greek, Russian. I don't really feel England, France, Spain (close though, for their Moorish influances) or Poland has a deep enough impact (...)

Poland, on the other hand, did hold a lot of military power for a long time in history, but culturally they didn't move from medieval to Renaissance quickly enough to avoid being shadowed by their neighbours, and medieval kingdoms aren't as culturally influancial as nation-states, with consequences.

Just want to remind that
1) Poland was the first European country where a person (except peasants of course ) could not be imprisoned without a trial.
2) Poland was also the first european country with constitution which was just voted by parliament!!! Not like in France implemented with force of revolution
3) In Poland was born heliocentric theory.
4) Jagiellonian University in Krakow was one of the first ones in Europe (first in central, east Europe) - "De bello iusto" - book published there was a basement for international law


Problem of Poland was that through the thousand years of existance, it was alway between agresive civilizations: Germans, Mongols, Turks, later Russians and Swedes. in XVII century Poland just fought too many wars at the same time which led to it fall. But not for a long time - after reappearing after I WW immediately was able to stop and push back great Soviet Union!! And during II WW was almost able to stop Germans (if not attacked by Russia from east).
If western allies fulfiled their agreements and opened second front - II WW would last few months maybe.

Poland or better Commonwealth should be considered as a true civilization, because it pass the test of time staying 1000 years in one of the most dificult regions in the world, keeping its culture, language and identity


btw. Why Russia? Because of almost one century of communism and Soviet Union? BTW - Warsaw Pact was signed in Poland
Because of conquering wastelands and nomad tribes of Siberia. Or maybe for best ever bargain with selling Alaska ?
Just kidding
Have ever been in Russia? True Russia is only European part to Ural. They never was a true power as always big but poor and weak. Soviet Union was also not as powerful as american movies show. Millions of their citizens starved to death, army was numerous but with very poor morale and badly commanded. Economy was scaled only to heavy industry when free trade was forbidden and many goods were rationed or wasn't able to be gained at all. Just fear was easily to be found.

Weakness of Soviet Union can be easily seen at Cuban Crisis, Space race and Apollo Program, and polish Solidarity. Best view of Soviet Union in my opinion was shown in Mikhail Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita"

 

[Blake4000]

No, sorry I don't want to see a Polish civ, they are abit insignificant. A better civ would be Australia. Or Brazil

 

[Vertico]

No, sorry I don't want to see a Polish civ, they are abit insignificant. A better civ would be Australia. Or Brazil

eeeh! Marketing!
If I spent milions of euros on marketing and PR, Poland would be significant to everybody in the world, like Coca Cola. Just need to collect the money

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

To the person that suggested Australia and Brazil: I'd rather add Poland first. Australia is a colony of the British empire, and Amazon tribes were not sophisticated to be considered a civilization. If you're talking about modern Brazil, I must say they have more South American roots, and the Portugese language is just a coating.

Carthage absorbed enough Greek culture eventually, plus, Pheoniciens were a Greek colony, sort of. A lot of "civilizations" were Greek colonies. Again, I don't feel like mixing up nations and civilizations. There are over 150 nations today, but DEFINITELY no more than 30 of them could even be argued to be civilizations.

China and Korea, I used the same reasoning as Rome and France. Chinese is like Latin, and modern China is frighteningly similar to Europe, culturally. And most Viking tribes actually hailed from Germanic lands (check the similarity of the names of their Gods), unless you're talking about the Lapps and Finns that lived like the Inuit there, but I doubt that's the Vikings people are talking about.

I really must clarify one thing: I didn't answer this thread because I feel it's stupid. I answered because I really feel Poland is very close, but just not quite.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

unless you're talking about the Lapps and Finns that lived like the Inuit there

Lived like Inuits?

There aren't polar bears in Finland, nor there aren't eternal winter...

 

[Blake4000]

To the person that suggested Australia and Brazil: I'd rather add Poland first. Australia is a colony of the British empire

An obvious flaw with this statement is that America is in. And the same applies to them. Their language is English, they were created by English. Their customs and law are based on the English civil law. Whats your point?