Petition to add Poland

[Atolino]

I'm from Poland and I'm realy looking forward to see Pols in Civ4 exp

I've read 10 pages and I've read that Poland did not have any major influence on Europe. The battle of viena or tannenberg (grunwald) or

The Prussian Homage or Tribute (German: Preußische Huldigung; Polish: hołd pruski) was the formal investment of Albert of Prussia as duke of the Polish fief of Ducal Prussia.

Albert, Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights and a member of the House of Hohenzollern, visited Martin Luther at Wittenberg and soon therefter became sympathetic to Protestantism. On April 10, 1525, in the market of the Polish capital Kraków, Albert resigned his position as Grand Master to become a Lutheran and receive the title "Duke of Prussia" from King Zygmunt I the Old of Poland. In a deal partially brokered by Luther, the Duchy of Prussia became the first Protestant state, anticipating the Peace of Augsburg of 1555.

That means that we had Germans as vassals


I'm sorry but i dont know why Netherlands should be in.

(sorry for all mistakes)

 

[Hitti-Litti]

'm sorry but i dont know why Netherlands should be in.

Netherlands were a big power in international trade, and Netherlands defended their lands against much bigger Habsburg dynasty. Also they had nice amount of colonies, including New Amsterdam aka New York.

 

[danieldaniel]

@about Holland -

I don't know if the Netherlands should be in, but IMO they come surely before Poland.

Holland has never been a major militar power, but it has excelled as nation of merchants and sailors, in that role Holland has had a great influence in world history.

Holland had an overseas empire and did a good deal of commerce with asia, africa and america. If you read some history of the ottoman empire, you will find out that their monopoly of the trades routes betwen Europe and India was one of their main sources of income. When the European (first Portugal and then the others) opened the new routes to India, the ottomans lost that monopoly. That is one of the main causes of their decline. This trade routes hurted the turks in a way far greater and deeper than the battle of Wien.

I guess you all heard of the Indutrial Revolution, that little thing that ist so important in economic history, that subject of history where people don't talk about battles.... ? The industrial revolution is a very complex process that i won't describe here, but I will say that it has altered the world, the way humans live, in a way that is only comparable to the discovering of agriculture. Modern live, as we know it, would not exist without it. I think it's more important than some middle age battle.

The industrial revolution originated in England (and Scottland i think), then spread to Holland. Holland is one of the Pionners, and plays a major role here. No need of fighting any battle or vassalising anyone.

The industrial revolution didn't come out of the nothing, a major factor was the wealth originated from the overseas empires, where Holland plays major role. Dutch empire was not so big as Spain's, but the Dutch were better merchants and got more out of it. I don't want to make this too long, so I won't talk about holland's inventions in the fields of finance and agriculture, just say that the dutch already had some sort of stock markets in the middle age. I guess you realize how important is Finance nowdays, and I guess you use some of that in Poland.

And please don't start with the "we saved the whole world from the turks in battle of Wien". The turks were in decline for other reasons. It was a very important battle, i don't deny that, a reference point in the history of the ottoman empire, but still just a battle, the turks would have decline and lost their possesions in Europe anyway, maybe a little later, but their economical and organizational model was obsolete. And anyway, you make it look like you did it alone...

Poland has a beautiful history, sure, just like about every country in Europe. For instance my contry is Spain, we also have the Lepanto battle against the turks, countless middle age battles against the arabs, wars aginst the french, we dominated italy and holland among other areas for some time, the king Carlos the first (fifth of germany) fought a lot of famous battles, Felipe the second tried to invade England and failed, we were the first to defeate Napoleon after he had conquered Spain, etc etc etc... but you know what? That's not the reason why Spain is important in world History, there is something else, for good or for bad (in my opinion mostly for bad) we did some serious stuff in America. That's the kind of thing that Poland is lacking IMO. It doesn't need to be in the war and conquering field, it can be in the sailing and merchant field like Holland or Portugal, or in the art field like Italy but being a regional power is just not enough. The Partians for example had a huge empire, they defeated Rome and stopped it from expanding further to the east and nobody remembers them.

I guess that's hard to believe if you are polish and have been educated to believe the contrary. But answers like "you westerns don't know about Poland", or "history is written by winners" are just poor excuses to flee from reality. I'm western and I know of teh importance of Russia, the arabs, China, Mongolia... I see and understand the historical data you provide, it's just not enough to convince me.

PD : By "You", i didn't mean anyone in special, and i don't mean to insult Poland

EDIT: wow, that was a long post, i wonder if anyone will read all that

 

[Giaur]

Some guy just told me that problem with adding Poland into expansion is that piracy in our country equals 90 percent, while in Netherlands it's about 10 percent

 

[Vertico]

Danieldaniel

The only problem with your arguments is that You're mixing times. You want to compare modern times or the times of industrial revolution with times of past. I hope you agree that now life in poorest country fn the world is better than life in the most richest empire of the past.
Japan now is a modern country, with one the biggest economy in the world, when two centruries ago, was just poor undevelopped country with feudalism as way of life. If we move back in history to that times, You woouldn't say that Japan should be inluded to civ. You probably won't either add China, because perception of both those countries was different than now.

Next example - Holland. Today nobody will say that Holland is a significant country in the world and will choose rather USA. But if You get back in history, Holland were more important for many than rebel colonies of England in the "end of the world". The same Turks - nobody is afraid of them now, but in past their domination was too scary for thousands of people.

Conclusion: If your reasons to add a nation into Civ4 are based on recent history, there should be no place for Mongolia, Mali, Zulu, Vikings, Azecs, Rome etc... maybe even Spain - as their boom started quite recently.

If You are looking at the certain time in history through the eyes of contemporary people, we may add them more. Spain had it's golden age, Turks had, Poland as well.
In XV - XVI centtury Poland was the biggest, one of the richest and most powerful countries in Europe. The role of polish language was very similar to english right now, you wanted to do business, You had to learn it. And trade conections to east and west was a quite big source of constant income.
What was also cool that times? Nobody - even King could rob you. There were laws (quite good for that times) which prevent anybody to imprison you without a trial. King was not an absolute monarch, there were no inqusition, holy wars and Poland was a dream place for imigrants from all Europe (just like USA was and is until today). Battles were in te meantime

p.s.
Reagrding Partains, something will chane I hope as some new historians explaing their echievements to public. But they are reprezented already in Civ.

 

[Weird_bug]

Before Poland, a Pacific country. Europe is over represented. The Pacific is under-represented. Simple equation.

 

[Quornix]

Wow. Just read all 400+ posts in this thread, and I've got to say that I've been convinced, despite only coming into the thread to see why anyone would want Poland as a civ. But there are a number of very good points that I've seen.

1) Continuous national identity.

In all the maps from the various eras, up until modern day, Poland has been Polish. It's been allied with other nations, it's been conquered by other nations, but in the end, it's remained Polish, and its own nation. It has never risen again as someone else. Can't say that about a number of civilizations that we play with now, much less some of the suggestions.

2) Regional significance.

I think that part of the reason that many folks don't see its influence on the world is because they're only looking at its influence on Western European culture. Sure, that's not where its main influence lies -- it's in Eastern Europe. I don't think that anyone disputes China's status as a civilization, despite the fact that it has never invaded England. China didn't break up the Roman empire. China didn't found New York. This wasn't where China's influence was felt, but it doesn't reduce its status as an in-game civilization. I think that it's just that China is far enough away that people feel "of course they didn't", whereas Poland is part of Europe. It's just that its a different part of Europe.

3) Sheer size of its dominion.

It's risen and fallen in size, but even looking at just Poland during its heyday, and ignoring the rest of its alliance partners and vassals, it at least matched France, Germany, and Spain. Throw in Lithuania and the other territories, and it's big. Not Roman Empire big, no, but still, it counts as an empire.

4) There's room for it.

Despite an oversized Western Europe on pretty much all world maps for the game, there just isn't any space to add the Netherlands or Portugal. It's already pretty hard to do much with Spain, with their midgame UU and no room to expand. What's Portugal going to do? Just duke it out with Spain for control of the Iberian peninsula? It will just slow down the winner, and they'll control the same space as one civ. Same problem with the Netherlands and France. Any Mediterranean or Middle Eastern civ will have a similar problem.

There is, in fact, room between Germany and Russia though, especially considering this map here, which I have so totally bookmarked. They should be able to get four or five cities in there. Germany will be hemmed in a bit more, and Russia will have to do more northern and eastern expansion, but they'll just have to suck it up.

4) Genuine empire.

It sounds like much of the Polish empire was built through diplomacy, rather than through conquest. It still counts. They have certainly had their share of wars, and have been victorious enough. Their diplomacy was backed by a solid military, as we've seen shown. They certainly weren't a piddly do-nothing country like some would have us believe. And they seem to have had a solid cultural backing as well. All these things are able to be emulated in the game.


Anyways.....

As for being "backwards" at the time of the Renaissance, one of the more ludicrous claims against them that I've seen, as there has been no evidence that they were in any way culturally inferior to Western Europe, as a nearly landlocked nation, it wasn't out exploring the new world like Portugal, England, Spain, or the Netherlands. That wasn't their game. Portugal and Holland, both apparently preferred to Poland, were tiny nations on the coast, surrounded by stronger militaries -- what else could they have done? And apparently, Poland played even that game a little bit. Once economic empires are established in the game (which would be soooo sweet), I'd love to see some of those. But for now, that's not really an option.

So, yeah, I'd say that after all the information we've been given, Poland would make an excellent addition in a new expansion pack. Toss in Babylon, Ethiopia, Polynesia, two American civs, and one more African civ, and I think we'd have a winning package. Sorry to the Netherlands and Portugal, but honestly, those were mostly added to Civ 3 for that one "New World" scenario. Get the tools to make trading and colonialism work, and I'm all over them, but for right now, they just don't make sense to add in.

--Quornix

 

[danieldaniel]

@Vertico, I don’t mean to value modern times over ancient times, I was just trying to explain why Holland is so important in World history. Holland’s golden age happens to be more or less at the same time as Poland’s. Poland’s military power and influence has been maybe greater than Holland’s, I don’t know, but as merchants and sailors the dutch have influenced the whole world in a permanent way.

During Poland’s golden age things were happening in the world, that would result in very deep changes. The first overseas empires and the Renaissance are the beginning of something that would radically change the whole World, they are the beginning of a new era in world history. Poland’s golden age happens to be in the same time and continent as those events, but plays only a marginal role in them. That was already the point of my first post.

Italy stands out in the field of art, like France or ancient Greece; Holland or the Phoenicians stand out as merchants and sailors, German and Japan stand out for their economic and industrial power; France and Britain stand out in many fields to be named here, but one of the is as imperialistic powers, the Mongols stand out as great conquerors, the US also in many things, one of them power and influence; Hebrews or India in the spiritual field, as founders of religions….

Poland has had artists, has had power and influence, is an industrial country, has been an important commercial centre, has won wars etc, but it doesn’t stand out in any particular field. Poland’s role in the history of art can’t be compared to Italy’s, Poland’s power in the XVII century was just in a region of Europe, just in the moment things were starting to go worldwide, and it can’t be compared to the power and influence of ancient Rome or modern US, Poland’s contribution to economy can’t be compared to that of Holland or Phoenicia. Poland has had philosophers, but in that field can’t be compared to Greece or Germany. Hannibal, Caesar or Napoleon stand out as great generals, sure Poland has had generals but not quite like those, Poland hasn’t built a huge empire out of invading and conquering other nations …. I think you get my point.

Poland contribution is not essential to world history. You can not explain the last 200 years of history without talking about the US, if there had not been Spain, the whole continent of America would be radically different, you can’t understand the whole European culture without Rome and Greece. Without Poland the World would not be very different, and I don’t mean this to insult Poland, it doesn’t make Poland better or worse than the others.

I understand there are many civs that are already in the game and should come after Poland, what can I say, pack your things and move to Africa. I still don’t understand why they included Vikings and Celts either. I can understand you guys from that point of view.

EDIT
@quornix: I don't know who called Poland backwards, the Renaissance also affected Poland and all eastern europe in general, but it starts in Italy and then spreads from there, Poland is not a major representant of it. That doesn't mean that Poland was culturally backwards, but it doesn't stand out in that field as Italy does.

 

[LDeska]

@Giaur - some data from BSA (Bussiness Software Alliance) - probably he best source to get data about illegal software: http://www.bsa.org/globalstudy/upload/2005-Global-Study-English.pdf
In year 2004 Poland had 59% of illegal software (ut's way different than 90% you've mentioned ), it's less than for example Greece which had 62%. It it still huge in my opinion. Those data are for 2004, so few years passed and things are improving. Let me give you my example - I'm running a small company. Because of ethic reasons all of my programs are legal. But those who do not share my point of view, but are running companies simply have to use only legal software. The law says that BSA (accompanied by the police) have right to check each company if they're using only legal software.

@danieldaniel - I like that you are supplying arguments - it's a step towards reasonable discussion. In my opinion your point of view is (in short): "civ which deserves place in CIV = civ which contributed to the times of great expansion". Do you think like this or it's just my impression?
Please understand that for people living in our part of Europe it's not so important. Poland never colonized Africa, America or Asia. And this is something I'm proud of. I would never want to go overseas and exploit people living there or even take them as slaves. We know what it means because for 123 years of partitions (1795-1918) we were such colony in heart of Europe, treated as a reservoir of people (Poles fought in WWI on both sides of conflict, but not for their cause, just our occupiers), wood, coal, copper and all other resources that are on our soil.

 

[Mirc]

Danieldaniel

The only problem with your arguments is that You're mixing times. You want to compare modern times or the times of industrial revolution with times of past. I hope you agree that now life in poorest country fn the world is better than life in the most richest empire of the past.
Japan now is a modern country, with one the biggest economy in the world, when two centruries ago, was just poor undevelopped country with feudalism as way of life. If we move back in history to that times, You woouldn't say that Japan should be inluded to civ. You probably won't either add China, because perception of both those countries was different than now.

Next example - Holland. Today nobody will say that Holland is a significant country in the world and will choose rather USA. But if You get back in history, Holland were more important for many than rebel colonies of England in the "end of the world". The same Turks - nobody is afraid of them now, but in past their domination was too scary for thousands of people.

Conclusion: If your reasons to add a nation into Civ4 are based on recent history, there should be no place for Mongolia, Mali, Zulu, Vikings, Azecs, Rome etc... maybe even Spain - as their boom started quite recently.

If You are looking at the certain time in history through the eyes of contemporary people, we may add them more. Spain had it's golden age, Turks had, Poland as well.
In XV - XVI centtury Poland was the biggest, one of the richest and most powerful countries in Europe. The role of polish language was very similar to english right now, you wanted to do business, You had to learn it. And trade conections to east and west was a quite big source of constant income.
What was also cool that times? Nobody - even King could rob you. There were laws (quite good for that times) which prevent anybody to imprison you without a trial. King was not an absolute monarch, there were no inqusition, holy wars and Poland was a dream place for imigrants from all Europe (just like USA was and is until today). Battles were in te meantime

p.s.
Reagrding Partains, something will chane I hope as some new historians explaing their echievements to public. But they are reprezented already in Civ.

I hope you agree that now life in poorest country fn the world is better than life in the most richest empire of the past.

What? Are you kidding me?

Next example - Holland. Today nobody will say that Holland is a significant country in the world and will choose rather USA.

So, let's see, Holland is more important now, has had a much larger empire, and was a clear promoter of progress.... Well I think that's an example of national pride gone too far, Vertico.

The role of polish language was very similar to english right now, you wanted to do business, You had to learn it.

Not true at all. In southeastern Europe that language was Turkish, and not Polish, and in Western Europe people were pretty much speaking their own languages. Italian and German were more important even in Poland's golden age!

King was not an absolute monarch, there were no inqusition, holy wars

No holy wars? What? What about all the alliances with Hungary against the Orthodox countries?? It's even worse than starting a war with a country that's Muslim, or Buddhist, to attack a country that is also Christian, because they were not the same denomination. And the Inquisition didn't happen in Eastern Europe at all, it's far from being unique to Poland.

And trade conections to east and west was a quite big source of constant income.

So? Does this have anything to do with the subject we were discussing?

Quoted separately only parts in bold. Whole context is above, in the big quote.

 

[Vertico]

"I hope you agree that now life in poorest country fn the world is better than life in the most richest empire of the past."

Simple example for Mirc.
Even living on Haiti or Somalia or other rather poor countires, you life level is quite higher that let's say in ancient Rome. Now You have access to electricity which make life bit better, to medicine, vaciness, antibiotics which make life longer, various of goods from all the world like coca cola, cotton t-shirts, jeans or pepper and salt to make this life more worthful, also more entertaiment, access to news, human rights, Red Cross, WHO, UN ... and many others

When Romans were more close to Nature with all her advantages and disadvantages.

 

[CrazyMrLeo]

I for one would love to see Poland in the game, but I've always wanted a lot more countries.

Too much importance is placed on how significant a country was in history, in my opinion. What we should be focusing on is how much fun it would be to have it in the game. By that criteria, I can't really see a reason not to add Poland.

If space was limited, though, it wouldn't be first on my list. I'd prefer a country from Southeast Asia (like Thailand or Cambodia) just because they've yet to be in a Civ game and I think they'd be really cool.

 

[Mirc]

"I hope you agree that now life in poorest country fn the world is better than life in the most richest empire of the past."

Simple example for Mirc.
Even living on Haiti or Somalia or other rather poor countires, you life level is quite higher that let's say in ancient Rome. Now You have access to electricity which make life bit better, to medicine, vaciness, antibiotics which make life longer, various of goods from all the world like coca cola, cotton t-shirts, jeans or pepper and salt to make this life more worthful, also more entertaiment, access to news, human rights, Red Cross, WHO, UN ... and many others

When Romans were more close to Nature with all her advantages and disadvantages.

Well.... you picked the empire I know most about.

Coca cola - you don't need it. It doesn't make your life better. It actually makes it shorter!
entertainment - Romans had a lot of entertainment. They built theaters everywhere they went. They had a lot of known drama-writers (or whatever their name is in English), they had all kinds of sports taken from the Greeks to watch, they had public meetings in important squares, they had the forums and libraries with books, etc. And they were known to have some of the greatest comediants.
Electricity - it's the only thing you won't get before 1800. True.
Access to news - sorry, but the Persian system of the post was invented, and it is estimated that Roman couriers changed their horses every 25 km, which would mean that their horses had an average speed of 35 km/h. Considering the known fact that they were riding about 7 hours a day, that would mean 245 km/day. It's the only possible way to control an empire of that size, without electricity. And their ships, though clearly not fastest of their times, needed just a few days to get from let's say Egypt to Rome. The periodic meeting of the people's tribune with the people was held in a special building that was close to the exit of the domain on which the forum was built. Every five days, the people from cities that were interested were informed about many things going on around the empire. It is known that the both the pre-Caesar republic and Octavian's empire whose structure was respected for the rest of the life of the Roman empire was based on transparency, so people did have access at all kinds of political information.
UN? How does the UN help the life of an average citizen?
T-shirts or jeans are certainly completely unimportant. I would anytime renounce at T-shirts and jeans if I had something else to get in exchange, even some kind of basic comfort. Of course, not if everyone else would be wearing, in which case I would be out of the general lines of society.
Actually, citizens from Ancient Rome lived A LOT! Let's not make a confusion between Middle Ages and Ancient times. In the Ancient times, people often lived over 50-60 years. Pythagoras lived 89 years, for example. Most of the Somalians would not dream of such an age.
Modern Medicine would certainly be missed. But, again, let's not make a confusion between Middle Ages and Ancient times. In the middle ages, most people died before 40, though this was not a rule. In the Ancient times, most people lived more than 50 years. Rome was known for the long life of the peasants, that lived just about as much as now unless some disease or attack struck.

Honestly, the only things that I would be missing are Electricity and modern Medicine, but considering how extremely long the life in Rome was (and I can show proof of this), the situation is not as bad as you think.

 

[danieldaniel]

@ideska

Thank you for your response

In my opinion your point of view is (in short): "civ which deserves place in CIV = civ which contributed to the times of great expansion". Do you think like this or it's just my impression?

No, I don't mean that, it could be something like "the most important civs of different places and times".That raises the question "What is important?".

The answer to that question is very subjective. If we talk about Europe XV-XVIII centuries, what are the most important things that happened at that time and place? In my opinion the overseas empires and the Renaissance, Why? because the World would be very different now if those things had not happend, maybe the world would be a better place, I don't know, the Aztecs would be much better off, that's for sure.

Another criteria could be civs that stand out in any particular aspect, be it war, art, philosophy, religion, economy....

Anyway, I must admit the main reason why I started to post in this thread is because I read some things I didn't like about Holland, Germany and Russia. I've reading this forum for a long time and I usually don't post, because when I start posting I can't stop and it's a waste of time, and besides english readers usually don't like they way we latins write in english which is building very long sentences that make them feel dizzy.

I feel very close to those three countries, because I lived in Holland for two years, I love German language and culture and I've been also learning Russian and trying to understand the culture from that country for some time. I got a little upset with some comentaries I read and I started posting.

Now that I have put a little more thought on the matter, I admit I have been taking things too far. We're talking about a computer game, the requisites for a civ to come in can not be so hard, then we would have only England in the game. It's better to have many european civs than to have more zulus, so it should not be a problem to add Poland altogether with Holland and Portugal, after all Poland has a long and rich history, and makes a much better civ than many others that are already in just because they are african or because they are "cool".

You have my apologies if any of you felt insulted in my posts and I wish you luck with your petition. Now I go continue my Gandhi game before going to sleep.

 

[Wodan]

Japan now is a modern country, with one the biggest economy in the world, when two centruries ago, was just poor undevelopped country with feudalism as way of life. If we move back in history to that times, You woouldn't say that Japan should be inluded to civ. You probably won't either add China, because perception of both those countries was different than now. The only problem with your arguments is that You're mixing times. You want to compare modern times or the times of industrial revolution with times of past.

Conclusion: If your reasons to add a nation into Civ4 are based on recent history, there should be no place for Mongolia, Mali, Zulu, Vikings, Azecs, Rome etc... maybe even Spain - as their boom started quite recently.

I think this is the best conclusion drawn off a totally fallacious example, that I have ever seen.

Before Poland, a Pacific country. Europe is over represented. The Pacific is under-represented. Simple equation.

Compared to the Pacific, Europe is over-represented in its percentage of dry land.

Wodan

 

[Vertico]

Ok Mirc, let's come to the problem from the other side.

Food: To how many different cuisines Rome had access? I'm not an expert but I assume they didn't eat mexican chili, norwey salmon, japanese sea food etc. Did they use pepper? How much dis salt cost? Did they have 24/7 fasfood restaurants which delivered food to their homes?

Clothes: How many clothing material they used? What choice they had? How many colors? How much did purple cost? The same for shoes.

Entertaiment: Theatres, sports... did they able to watch them from home? Were they able to play games with thousands of other unknown people? Were they able to listen the music of famous musicians before they went to sleep? Were they traveling to other countries for holidays? If yes, how much it costed? Were they able to play games alone with the same fun as You when playing civ for instance?

Access to news: How many sources they were able to listen beside official ones? How many printed daily newspapers they had? How many encyclopaedias common roman had in his home? How many books? How many Romans finally knew how to read? How many years common Roman spent at schols? What they knew about other cultures?

UN, Red Cross, human rights: How many international organizations took care of people rights? How many people had a choice to not be slaves anymore? In case of disaster who was sending aid and rescuers. Who was helping survivors to start new life? Who was judging if ruler was a despot who commited crimes on people? Were there international laws, conventions even over emperors?
Life of people were always protected? What Romans thought about killing their not needed children? What was the lowest age of girls who used to be forced to get married?

Of course some of things mentioned above are myths even today, but we are talking on averages. Looking on average level of live, living in Rome must be barbaric comparing to modern times.

 

[HungryMouse]

Ok Mirc, let's come to the problem from the other side.

Food: To how many different cuisines Rome had access? I'm not an expert but I assume they didn't eat mexican chili, norwey salmon, japanese sea food etc. Did they use pepper? How much dis salt cost? Did they have 24/7 fasfood restaurants which delivered food to their homes?

Clothes: How many clothing material they used? What choice they had? How many colors? How much did purple cost? The same for shoes.

Entertaiment: Theatres, sports... did they able to watch them from home? Were they able to play games with thousands of other unknown people? Were they able to listen the music of famous musicians before they went to sleep? Were they traveling to other countries for holidays? If yes, how much it costed? Were they able to play games alone with the same fun as You when playing civ for instance?

Access to news: How many sources they were able to listen beside official ones? How many printed daily newspapers they had? How many encyclopaedias common roman had in his home? How many books? How many Romans finally knew how to read? How many years common Roman spent at schols? What they knew about other cultures?

UN, Red Cross, human rights: How many international organizations took care of people rights? How many people had a choice to not be slaves anymore? In case of disaster who was sending aid and rescuers. Who was helping survivors to start new life? Who was judging if ruler was a despot who commited crimes on people? Were there international laws, conventions even over emperors?
Life of people were always protected? What Romans thought about killing their not needed children? What was the lowest age of girls who used to be forced to get married?

Of course some of things mentioned above are myths even today, but we are talking on averages. Looking on average level of live, living in Rome must be barbaric comparing to modern times.

Don't you think it is really pointless to compare the way people had lived in ancient Rome and nowadays Somalia at least for the reason that you, I suppose, have not had personal experience living either in Rome or in Somalia? The standards of living are SO different that it is as weird to compare these two things as to discuss whether it is better to be a fish or a bird. I think there are enough horrors in Somalia today, at the same time there have been cruel traditions in Rome as well, but are you personally aware of them? What you read from the books about ancient Rome is only an iceberg's cap, a lot of things have just left unspoken of. And your generalisation about electricity, Red Cross, clothes and medicine in Somalia is just very naive. Even in some places of Estonia, this tiny and quite advanced Eastern European country there is no electricity, let alone local access to medicine, entertainment and, unfortunately Coca-Cola! Now think about this poor African country. My point is that the higher you climb in generalisation ladder, the less logical your arguments appear.

 

[LDeska]

danieldaniel - I totally agree with you about the waste of time I'm at work now and this is the reason why I'm only occasionally posting here. I'm simply short on time... What is really great in this post is that most of people support my idea and even if they don't, after some time they start to support it. It's the main prize for me I'm really pleased!
In next few days we'll send our petition to Firaxis. We only wait for official support of our Polish distributor of Civilization IV.

Again thanks for all of you who discussed this subject and especially for those who signed the petition!

 

[Mirc]

Ok Mirc, let's come to the problem from the other side.

Food: To how many different cuisines Rome had access? I'm not an expert but I assume they didn't eat mexican chili, norwey salmon, japanese sea food etc. Did they use pepper? How much dis salt cost? Did they have 24/7 fasfood restaurants which delivered food to their homes?

Clothes: How many clothing material they used? What choice they had? How many colors? How much did purple cost? The same for shoes.

Entertaiment: Theatres, sports... did they able to watch them from home? Were they able to play games with thousands of other unknown people? Were they able to listen the music of famous musicians before they went to sleep? Were they traveling to other countries for holidays? If yes, how much it costed? Were they able to play games alone with the same fun as You when playing civ for instance?

Access to news: How many sources they were able to listen beside official ones? How many printed daily newspapers they had? How many encyclopaedias common roman had in his home? How many books? How many Romans finally knew how to read? How many years common Roman spent at schols? What they knew about other cultures?

UN, Red Cross, human rights: How many international organizations took care of people rights? How many people had a choice to not be slaves anymore? In case of disaster who was sending aid and rescuers. Who was helping survivors to start new life? Who was judging if ruler was a despot who commited crimes on people? Were there international laws, conventions even over emperors?
Life of people were always protected? What Romans thought about killing their not needed children? What was the lowest age of girls who used to be forced to get married?

Of course some of things mentioned above are myths even today, but we are talking on averages. Looking on average level of live, living in Rome must be barbaric comparing to modern times.

Actually I agree to the post right after you. (Hungry Moose's) But I'll comment on these too, though I know we have very little personal information on either of the two countries.

Food: How much did salt cost? The word "salary" comes from the the word "sale", which means salt in Latin. The "salary" is the money given to people in order to buy salt from them. Yes they used a lot of condiments, not sure about pepper, but they traded pretty much everything from Egypt, China, and later even India. This is a known fact.

Clothes: They used many types of clothes. But how can we compare them to the ones today? I'm pretty sure the Somalians can't afford as many clothes as Romans did (and many people even in my country don't have shoes). But we can not prove this, as there is no proof.

Entertainment: No, they weren't able to get these things. But is a Somalian able to? No, and this can be proven: how many Somalians have you seen on these forums? How many people have computers there, or MP3 players, or TVs? A negligible minority of rich people. And the average persons don't have theaters or sports, while the Romans built them even in villages!

Access to news: Are you serious? The Romans had high schools and universities!! All men from the cities knew to read. Some of those from villages knew to read. How many Somalians know to read?

UN, Red Cross, Human Rights: They had slaves, true. But if you really want to go that way, slaves were not Romans... Who was judging if a despot commits crimes? Are you asking this seriously? They had senate, and separation of powers in state! (except military power, which was in the hands of the emperor). Do you know how many emperors have been dismissed by the senate? (and by coalitions of consuls) I've never heard about killing not needed children, maybe you just know more than me here. I don't know much about getting married either.

So let's make an exact comparison, based on your arguments:

* ... Food (general) .....
* ... Different sorts .....
Fast foods
* ... Salt ... *
* ... Clothes .....
* ... Shoes .....
TV
Internet
MP3 players
Computers
Theaters
Sports
Traveling
Daily Newspapers
* ... Books .....
* ... Many Ppl Know to read .....
UN, Red Cross
Human Rights
..... No Slaves ... *
Disaster Help
* ... Judging a ruler .....
Unneeded children
Forced to get married​

Star on the left - Romans had
Star on the right - Somalians have
No star - Neither of them have
-----------------------------
Final Score: Rome 8 - 3 Somalia

And this is only judging from your arguments, which are all meant to favor modern society! If I started talking about culture, art and tolerance to the conquered there would be no competition for Rome, when talking about Somalia or other poor countries.


Just my opinion. Let's not start a flame war. I wanted to be as polite as possible.

 

[Yeekim]

Quality of life can no way be related to having or not having TV or i-Pod, spices or large variety of clothes.

I think Abraham Maslow put things together pretty neatly in his "pyramid of needs":
http://www.accompany.lu/newsAttachment/Maslow%20Pyramid.jpg

I am sure one can get these needs filled to fullest absolutely without any regard to century one lives in or technology at one's disposal.

Another comparison has been drawn: stone-age gatherer in Kalahari had/has to "work" 2 hours per day. Rest of the time he can spend at leisure at whatever pastime he likes. Modern investment-banker in New York works 16 hours per day... Food for thought?

Medicine is really the only thing which would make a difference: eg. having a toothache and being able to do nothing about it can turn your life positively to hell.

But I doubt that people in Somalia have much access to medicines. Also, together with development of medicine and increase of average lifetime, people have become sicker and sicker - especially diseases which occur because of high age or corrupted genes (eg cancer) and wrong diet (eg diabete) have become much much more common.