Petition to add Poland

[Öjevind Lång]

Poland held Russia from expanding to Middle Europe. Korea was a puppet of either Chinese or Japanese. Mali was a power in Africa, it was a damn rich country. Zulus? Fought against Brits and lost... Vikings conquered England, that is an impact. Portugal and Netherlands were important colonial powers.

Poland did not keep Russia from expanding; it was swallowed up by Russia, Prussia and Austria. The Zulus were a great power in South Africa before the British began to take an interest in them. The Norsemen (or "Vikings") conquered not only England but also Normandy (named after them) and parts of Ireland and Scotland, as well as founding Russia, settling Iceland, the Faroes, Orkney and the Shetlands, and discovering America. They also maintained a colony on Greenland which lasted until the climate deteriorated in the 16th century. All in all, a fairly impressive achievement. Apart from all the other things Portugal did, it also founded Brazil, which was a huge historical achievement.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Why then in most civilized countries propagation of rasism, nazism etc. is forbiden? Or maybe it is forbiden only in Poland

Pardon? The propagation of Nazi or racist ideas are permitted in all democracies. So is homophobic propaganda. The thing that is generally forbidden is incitement to violence against minorities - ethnic or other.

France, Austria and Germany have laws forbidding people to deny that the Holocaust happened. Recently, France also enacted a law against denying that the Turkish genocide on Armenians during WWI ever happened. I can understand why those laws exist, but I think they are misguided; erroneous ideas should be encountered in free discussions, not with suppressive laws that can give people the impression that there is something to hide.

Incidentally, your attempt to insult the Netherlands because they accept gay marriages was way out of line. Why does the idea of same-sex marriages make you so upset?

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Öjevind, Poland was split by Prussia, Austria and Russia in the late 17XX if I remember right. Muscowy became the strongest princippality in Russia at late 14XX. That's near 300 of holding Russia back at least with some effort.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Öjevind, Poland was split by Prussia, Austria and Russia in the late 17XX if I remember right. Muscowy became the strongest princippality in Russia at late 14XX. That's near 300 of holding Russia back at least with some effort.

I think the Habsburgs had at last as much to do with holding back the Russians as the Poles. It's almost a pity that I think Germany is quite sufficient to represent Central Europe in the game, because the Habsburg Monarchy is one of the most interesting political entitites in world history.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

I don't know about Habsburg policy towards Russia, so I'm not sure about that.

Austria would be a nice addition, it was a major power for few centuries.

 

[dcbandicoot]

I can't bring myself to sign this. There are other, more historic Civs/Leaders that need adding first (most notably Babylon).

 

[Prestidigitator]

I can't bring myself to sign this. There are other, more historic Civs/Leaders that need adding first (most notably Babylon).

There we go again, another intelligent forum member .

 

[a4phantom]

France, Austria and Germany have laws forbidding people to deny that the Holocaust happened. Recently, France also enacted a law against denying that the Turkish genocide on Armenians during WWI ever happened. I can understand why those laws exist, but I think they are misguided; erroneous ideas should be encountered in free discussions, not with suppressive laws that can give people the impression that there is something to hide.

I agree. People with false and vile claims should be laughed or shouted down, not silenced by law.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Presti, you don't need any Babylonia, you made it yourself! You save money and the enviroment.

 

[Eskel]

I think the Habsburgs had at last as much to do with holding back the Russians as the Poles. It's almost a pity that I think Germany is quite sufficient to represent Central Europe in the game, because the Habsburg Monarchy is one of the most interesting political entitites in world history.

Again, please talk about facts, not your prejudices. Be so kind and give any example of major war between Russia and Habsburg monarchy.
BTW. : If there was no Polish aid in 1783, Austrians would be speaking turkish by now.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Again, please talk about facts, not your prejudices. Be so kind and give any example of major war between Russia and Habsburg monarchy.
BTW. : If there was no Polish aid in 1783, Austrians would be speaking turkish by now.

The Russians knew better than to fight major wars with Austria; they would have been mashed. The Austrians were much more powerful than the Russians in those days. Instead the Russians divided up Poland with Austria and Prussia. Poland's achievements against Russia are not stunning. In 1525, Poland had to cede huge land areas, including Smolensk, to get peace with Russia. (These were areas that Poland had previously gained through the dynastic union with Lithuania, not through war.) In 1582, King Stephen Batory managed to get Russia to acknowledge Livonia (half of the present-day Baltic country of Latvia and formerly a possession of the Teutonic Order of Knights) as a Polish possession, but Poland lost it again in the first half of the 17th century. In 1618, Poland got back Smolensk and some other areas, only to lose them again in 1654. After that, it was downhill all the way for Poland - losing huge parts of Ukraine (gained through the Lithuanian marriage) because of the Cossack rebellion of Bogdan Chmielnicki, losing this, losing that.
I suppose you mean 1683, not 1783. By 1783, Austria had conquered huge areas from Turkey, not least in the peace of Passarowitz.

 

[burak]

^^So you agree that until 1654 it was Poland holding back Russian expansion in the west?

And btw how would Austria hold back Russia, if it even hadn't border with them? Austrian and Russian borders met only in 1793, after 2nd partitioning of Poland by these countries.

 

[Eskel]

So, there was no Austro-Russian wars that time. Moreover, Austria rose to the rank of major power after Polish help at battle of Vienna in 1683 (you were right it was typo) as most of their land possesions were under Ottoman control. So they couldnt be any match for Russia.
Furthermore, dates you have given only prove, that we were halting Russians for at least 150 years. I would say it was even more, as tension was growing from the early XVcnt., and we lost last possibility to compete with Russia in the very early XVIIIcnt during Great Northern War.

All that means you had no basis to maintain your what-if hypothesis, and you are simply twistng facts to suit your prejudices.
I have asked you some question few pages before, and you still hadn't answered them.

 

[a4phantom]

I don't know enough to weigh in on this one, other than to know that if Napoleon and married the Russian princess and invaded Austria instead the world would be a very different place, but Austrian royalty was considered much grander. But that was after the time frame you guys are discussing. But it is not necessary to fight a war for two countries to check eachother's power and expansion, look at America and the Soviet Union for 45 years.

As a matter of popular perception, which is probably what counts to Sid's team, I think Austrian history is considered much more glorious & imperial. I bet that's what guides inclusion in Civ, regardless of actual historical accomplishments.

 

[Eskel]

I don't know enough to weigh in on this one, other than to know that if Napoleon and married the Russian princess and invaded Austria instead the world would be a very different place, but Austrian royalty was considered much grander. But that was after the time frame you guys are discussing. But it is not necessary to fight a war for two countries to check eachother's power and expansion, look at America and the Soviet Union for 45 years.

As a matter of popular perception, which is probably what counts to Sid's team, I think Austrian history is considered much more glorious & imperial. I bet that's what guides inclusion in Civ, regardless of actual historical accomplishments.

It is good that you said "as a matter of popular perception".
I think the main problem with history is that is seen from different, particular points of view. Thats why Poland is not recognizable for western audience: when it was in union with Lithuania one of largest (if not largest) europeans powers, it was simply involved in the eastern politics and had no direct impact on any country from the western culture group.
Jagiellon dynasty had more possessions than Habsburgs before battle of Mohacs 1526 yr, and bigger military power at their hands. Nevertheless, HRE and Habsburgs were a part of history of almost all countries to the west of river Oder - and we were the great absentee.

At the other hand, when Poland finally appeared in the western common history, we were under decline of our power and we were then just object of politics for other countries, not its independent subject.
Unluckily for us, it was the most recent history (and today's 5-minute fame is always more important than a whole year ten years ago).
Moreover, we had terrible publicity - countries taking part in partitioning of Poland did anything they could to prove we deserved such a fate. History is written by victorious - and so it was written by our occupants throughout the entire XIX cnt. This version is a dominant one.

Thats why we almost dont exist in most popular imagination of common history. I can understand this, but not agree with.

About Austria itself - their standalone (apart from HRE) history started in 1699, and lasted till 1918. During that time they never managed to reach power comparable to potential of former Polish-Lithuanin Commonwealth, however they were active political player (that makes an impression of glorious and imperial history - we can hear about them a lot, even if they were mostly uneffective). Maybe thats why, being almost as much weak as PLC, they could benefit from Partitions of Poland (which were in fact a work of Frederic and Catherine, indisputable powers that time).
They were even beaten in 1809 by army of Napoleon-created satellite country made of Poland's left-overs (so called Duchy of Warsaw) - and we were really weak then, you can belive me.

 

[a4phantom]

It is good that you said "as a matter of popular perception".
I think the main problem with history is that is seen from different, particular points of view. Thats why Poland is not recognizable for western audience: when it was in union with Lithuania one of largest (if not largest) europeans powers, it was simply involved in the eastern politics and had no direct impact on any country from the western culture group.
Jagiellon dynasty had more possessions than Habsburgs before battle of Mohacs 1526 yr, and bigger military power at their hands. Nevertheless, HRE and Habsburgs were a part of history of almost all countries to the west of river Oder - and we were the great absentee.

At the other hand, when Poland finally appeared in the western common history, we were under decline of our power and we were then just object of politics for other countries, not its independent subject.
Unluckily for us, it was the most recent history (and today's 5-minute fame is always more important than a whole year ten years ago).
Moreover, we had terrible publicity - countries taking part in partitioning of Poland did anything they could to prove we deserved such a fate. History is written by victorious - and so it was written by our occupants throughout the entire XIX cnt. This version is a dominant one.

Thats why we almost dont exist in most popular imagination of common history. I can understand this, but not agree with.

For most of the Civ franchise, the famous but brief Zulu Kingdom has represented Africa, with no mention of the Berbers or Ethiopia, one of the oldest nations on Earth and one of the few parts of Africa never colonized. So, don't take exclusion from Civ as a blow to national pride.

 

[ghostbuster]

Poland is not needed in Civ 4, at least until you have the core civilizations down, then and only then can you add the civs that are there for novelty, or to appease a few groups of people (IE: Poland, Austria, Canada, Vietnam, etc etc)

 

[Eskel]

For most of the Civ franchise, the famous but brief Zulu Kingdom has represented Africa, with no mention of the Berbers or Ethiopia, one of the oldest nations on Earth and one of the few parts of Africa never colonized. So, don't take exclusion from Civ as a blow to national pride.

Yes, I know - I cannot blaem Firaxis team or other people for judging our history on basis that was taught to them. It is not their fault. What I am doing here, is trying to convince them by presenting my point of viem, without getting upset.

However, I cant stand when somebody knows a little about history or searches for facts, and spreads hostile propaganda.

BTW.: Ethiopia was always my favourite to represent Africa.

 

[Eskel]

Poland is not needed in Civ 4, at least until you have the core civilizations down, then and only then can you add the civs that are there for novelty, or to appease a few groups of people (IE: Poland, Austria, Canada, Vietnam, etc etc)

Do we talk about removing core civilizations or adding a new one?
I think we could appear from time to time in expansion pack, thats all.

 

[Vertico]

Poland did not keep Russia from expanding; it was swallowed up by Russia, Prussia and Austria.

I would not comment it. I feel tired to teach you once again Eastern Europe history. Learn more about dimitriads for instance and Poles on Kremlin.

One word about "popular perception".
I feel that this issue depend of the culture.

People from Western Europe knows better Western Europe history and have their own perception of history of the world. The same is for Eastern Europe and any other part of the world.
Spanish people feels, that they discovered America, but native Americans don't feel they were discovered.
Öjevind Lång thinks that Vikings conquered England but English do not confirm the same - btw who was a better Viking, William or Hårdråda?
Chineese used to feel that China is a centre of the world, where almost everyone outside was a Barbarian, the same Romans. But European invaders (the same in both examples ) didn't think the same about themselves.
Tavenier feels that The Netherlands had a great influence on the world, I feel thad this influence just focused on western part of Europe, Indonesia and south Africa, and did not influenced for instance: Eastern Europe almost at all

So my qestion: is there only one "correct doctrine" estabilished and published in strict western countries like USA, France, Germay, UK or there is somewhere space for facts even if they sounds against "official perception"?