Ukrainian civilisation (mainly based on Cossacks)

Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,393
Location
Texas
Then the people from Firaxis A) either never passed primary school, or B) have another criteria to pick civs after 6 games and over 50 civs.
Italy has been partially put in the games thanks to Civ 4 HRE, where Italian cities were used, and Civ 5 Venice. I think the primary reason they haven't got in is the whole "Rome is the capital situation" which could have been avoided this iteration, however.

Agree all nations did some terrible stuff in their history, that is not a reason to leave out any option.
Still, if the great achievements of italians ancestors are reasons to add them it should be also valid to point the negative actions.
Still the vast majority of people associate Fascism with Germany, and that doesn't stop their inclusion, nor Fascism appearing as a government option. :dunno:
I think them being the birthplace of fascism is at the bottom of reasons to not to include them, if that's even an issue at all.
 
Last edited:

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,779
Location
Babylon 5
Italy has been partially put in the games thanks to Civ 4 HRE, where Italian cities were used, and Civ 5 Venice. I think the primary reason they haven't got in is the whole "Rome is the capital situation" which could have been avoided this iteration, however.
Also as city-states (Bologna and Vatican City in Civ6; Florence, Milan, Genoa, and Vatican City in Civ5.).
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,393
Location
Texas
Also as city-states (Bologna and Vatican City in Civ6; Florence, Milan, Genoa, and Vatican City in Civ5.).
You forgot Venice in Civ 6 too. :p

I mean Bologna could have easily been replaced and Vatican City isn't part of Italy today, so it could have stayed as a city-state. Venice could have stayed separate too representing well Venice, considering them and their colonies were more Greek/Byzantine influenced. I mean we also got Wolin and Nalanda as city-states, so who knows about the future. :dunno:
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,779
Location
Babylon 5
You forgot Venice in Civ 6 too. :p

I mean Bologna could have easily been replaced and Vatican City isn't part of Italy today, so it could have stayed as a city-state. Venice could have stayed separate too representing well Venice, considering them and their colonies were more Greek/Byzantine influenced. I mean we also got Wolin and Nalanda as city-states, so who knows about the future. :dunno:
I wasn't using that as a counterargument against including Italy; I was pointing to it as another example that Italy has been represented in the game. (And yes, you're right I forgot about Venice.)

Venice, considering them and their colonies were more Greek/Byzantine influenced.
That's, uh, one way of putting it. Probably not the way the Byzantines would have put it. :p
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,033
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Let me be clear. I'm not against including Italy as a civ in civilization. In fact, it's pretty much the only Western European civilization that has never been in Civ yet that I would consider adding at this point.

But it's not an essential on the level of France/Spain/England/Rome/Greece/Russia. (I'm rethinking Germany)

Yeah, it just carried half of European civilization for a thousand years, and you cannot do any primary school history textbook without mentioning it like 50 times, and Western science, education, secular culture and philosophy were born here, not a big deal, as opposed to Haiti.

...and it invented sliced bread (Not to make light of their many actual culinary innovations, which are many, but then again, same can be said of many other places).

The idea that Italy carried half of European civilization for a thousand years is just a rephrasing of the bad old Dark Ages/Renaissance nonsense - the idea that the thousand year between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance was some king of intellectual, artistic and cultural void. Which historians have long since speared to death, gutted and destroyed because it is absolutely untrue.

covers like half of all lists of greatest pieces of art ever,

Funny. I just looked up a few list of greatest artists and greatest art pieces and, aside from being very subjective I didn't see half of them being Italian. Sure, Italy has Leonardo and Michaelangelo and Carravagio. And the Dutch have Rembrandt and Van Gogh and Vermeer, the French Monet and Renoir and Cézanne (and that's just some of the impressionists), the Spanish have Picasso and Velasquez and Dali (and, if we count the former Spanish colonies, Kahlo), the English have Turner (and if we count their colonies, Cassat and Pollock), and Russia (well, Belarus) has Chagall, and so on and so forth. And that's just the ones we know of in a pretty Western-centric perspective. China, Japan, India had their own great artists, we just took so long to learn about them that we haven't really integrated them and their conception of art in our world views yet.

Art is one of the most universal human gifts, and there are very few civilizations that have not produced great art along the way. Italy provided one of the major movements in European artistic history, but the Dutch and French and so forth all have similar claims to fame.

I could essentially say the same of education, philosophy, what have you. Italy made great contributions - but so did other countries.
---------------------

At the end of the day, French, Spanish and English are spoken as first languages by people born on every continent. One is the modern global language, the other used to be (and we named the concept of a global language after it - lingua franca). Greece may only have held an empire for a decade, but for centuries after Greek colonies and dynasties spoke Greek from Marseilles to Kandahar. Latin spread from Lisbon to Syria and from York to Aswan, and form a basis if not the main basis of half the spoken languages in that region today. Even Russia, more recently, spread its political tentacles from Cuba to Hanoi.

I don't see Italy or Italian culture, as important as they were, on that level. I'm sorry. They were important, and I do consider them a civilization that's worth including. But not on that level.

Germany, yes, actually, Italy and Germany are kind of similar - but actually, I think that's because we overrate Germany. Extremely important, and a power that influenced European history, but nowhere close to the global reach and influence of those five. If it wasn't for the fact that the Western Allies *still* aren't over feeling existentially threatened by Germany twice in a century, it probably wouldn't make this list.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,393
Location
Texas
I wasn't using that as a counterargument against including Italy; I was pointing to it as another example that Italy has been represented in the game. (And yes, you're right I forgot about Venice.)
Ah I see what you mean now. Then again I did see it as a counterargument because it seems like it's easy for Italy to get the most representation. :cry:

That's, uh, one way of putting it. Probably not the way the Byzantines would have put it. :p
Well they did replace Antioch.:mischief:
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,779
Location
Babylon 5

BuchiTaton

King
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
649
Still the vast majority of people associate Fascism with Germany, and that doesn't stop their inclusion, nor Fascism appearing as a government option. :dunno:
I think them being the birthplace of fascism is at the bottom of reasons to not to include them, if that's even an issue at all.
Agree.
Still in this point I was more about the irony of atribute the ancestors achievements to validate ANY civ options, while remember negative actions is "blaming an entire nation". With history come both the pride and the shame.

For me Italy could be represented by city states with Venice (merchant), Milan or Florence (culture) and Vatican (if religion still is their own thing).
On an upgraded "minor civs" system they could give you acces not just to bonus but also to unique units or infraestructure, have a nice italian musical theme and ruler portraits.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
1,907
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
Let's back on topic.
What leader should lead Ukrain?
My knowledge of Ukranians leaders just go from Yanukovich to Zelensky :lol:
 

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,282
Location
Poland
Let's back on topic.
What leader should lead Ukrain?
My knowledge of Ukranians leaders just go from Yanukovich to Zelensky :lol:

Then you can read history of Ukraine on wikipedia to get the basic grasp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine
"Top 100 greatest Ukrainians" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velyki_Ukraïntsi
Kievan Rus - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus'
Cossack Hetmanate - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack_Hetmanate

Generally history of Ukraine can be divided into multiple periods

1) Kievan Rus (880s - 1240) - Kyiv was officially founded in 886, but archeology says major settlement existed much earlier, so it is among few oldest cities of all Slavs in general. Kyiv and Ukraine was the cultural and economic capital of this civilization, second major city was Novgorod, Moscow didn't even exist until early 13th century, centuries after Kyiv which peaked between 50,000 and 100,000 inhabitants (insane number for Eastern Europe of this era). So Ukrainians consider leaders of Kievan Rus such as Olga of Kyiv, Vladimir the Great and Yaroslav the Wise as 'theirs' (although obviously the legacy of that civilization is contested by Russian nationalism, it is impossible to deny that Kyiv was the most important center of this civilization). Kyiv got into great decline in 12th century, even before Mongol invasion which ruined it completely.
2) Sort of 'dark ages' (1240 - 16th century) - Ukraine got devastated by Mongol invasion and on top of that Byzantium has died stupidly, so on top of that major trade routes and cultural influx stopped. Kyiv is insignificant, but there was a period of flourish of Galicia - Volhynia in the west, and it had some highly respected dukes (Daniel of Galicia for example). Eventually 'civilized' half of Ukraine got conquered by Poland and Lithuania and local Ruthenians developed under that rule.
3) Cossacks (late 16th - late 18th century) - the word 'Ukraine' and 'modern' Ukrainian identity and language, very separate from Russian already, developed in this period. Cossacks were very unique type of democratic/stratocratic military groups living on the steppe frontier separating Ukrainians from Crimean Tatars who were relentlessly pillaging and enslaving people of the north. In the same time, printing press and education facilities spread across Ukraine, leading to high literacy and certain bloom of culture. Cossacks were famous for legendary military exploits and light cavalry, once pillaging suburbs of Istanbul for example; they were also integral part of PLC military. Ukrainians wanted to belong to Poland - Lithuanian Two Nations Commonwealth as a 'Third Nation' with their own parliament and privileges, the problem is, PLC nobility didn't respect them enough because of cultural differences and especially because of their egalitarian, democratic, not 'oligarchy of nobility' culture. Also, fun fact, thousands of peasants ran away from neighboring countries to live under Cossack rule. This led to Khmelnytsky Uprising which devastated both Poland - Lithuania and Ukraine, but also allowed for a period of relative independence of Ukrainian civilization, which is why Bohdan Khmelnytski is one of the most obvious candidates for a leader. But he is not the only one, because there are multiple Cossack hetmans who can be legit and interesting leaders of Ukraine
(Ivan Mazepa, Dmytro Vyshnevetskyi and few others).
4) Russsian domination (late 18th century - 1991). Russia eventually destroyed Ukrainian independence and started a very long, consistent period of subduing and persecuting Ukrainian language and identity, stubbornly insisting (against all evidence) that Ukraine is "smaller Russia" with merely "dialect" and "subculture" and trying to assimilate it into "one Rus". Well, they have completely failed despite having two centuries for that. Through this entire time Ukrainians were resisting this assimilation, occasionally joining Polish people in rebellions against Russia. Unfortunately, Polish and Ukrainian nationalisms started clashing and I admit as a Pole that Poland did a lot of nasty things and persecution to Ukrainians. In the early 20th century Ukraine almost got independent under Symon Petliura (fighting mostly against Russia but also against Polish agression :( ), but eventually 80% of it got under Soviet Union and rest into Poland. Under Soviet system Ukraine was again denied its own identity and devastated by Stalinism, Holodomor, terror and World War II (6 - 7 million deaths). Despite this all, it was an enormously important part of Soviet Union regarding economy, culture and a ton of great personalities. Nikita Khrushchev was of Ukrainian origin. In 1991 if I recall correctly in referendum 91% of Ukrainian population voted for independence.


Imho Khmelnytski or some other hetman should be leader of Cossack - based Ukraine, because this is simply very unique and interesting cultural period full of personality and having many features not present in any other civilization.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,472
^ IF Ukraine is to join Civ7 then they should get 'Cossacks'. and Russia should get either Streltsy or Licorne instead. Yes Russian Empire did use Cossacks but it didn't actually replace 'regular cavalry' nor even 'imported' hussars.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
1,907
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
Olga of Kyiv, Vladimir the Great and Yaroslav the Wise
I think is better avoid theses leaders since they also can be Russian leaders (excepet if the game do a same leader for two nations)

Bohdan Khmelnytski is one of the most obvious candidates for a leader.
Let's pick this one as leader the Ukraine. Is the best choice and it will avoid more controversia.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,393
Location
Texas
I think is better avoid theses leaders since they also can be Russian leaders (excepet if the game do a same leader for two nations)
I do kind of agree at this point even if they would be great leaders. Even though I don't personally mind the idea of dual leaders but if Ukraine and Russia were to be in the same game they should definitely avoid that. :shifty:

However I still stand by the fact that if Ukraine doesn't get in as a full civ, there's no reason why Kyiv couldn't get in as a city-state because of it's historical importance.
 

Xandinho

Deity
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
2,206
Location
Brazil
Yeah, it's pretty strange that Kyiv wasn't added as city-state in Civ6. Not only Kyiv, but also Vienna and Prague. Some people may say that would be Eurocentric to add so these cities into the game, but there are some very important cities outside Europe that should be in the game, such as Teotihuacan, Ife, Caral and Pagan.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
1,907
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
Some people may say that would be Eurocentric to add so these cities into the game
I'm these "some people" :lol:
Once I tryied to set a game in Civ 6 (Vanila) with all civs and all city states avaible in real location Earth. And I just can't because Europe is so small and so full of Civs and City States. I need to put some cities as Brussels and Amsterdan outside Europe in order to be avaiable to do my full map. I believe the developers need to do a very huge map in order to have space for every European be alocated in Europe.

Meanwhile, other regions of the globe stay very empity as Brazil, USA or Australia.

such as Teotihuacan, Ife, Caral and Pagan.
Where is Pagan? I search in google and just found articles about paganism:lol:


Back to the topic, I agree Kiev should be a city state. Fireaxis need to give some kind of support for this war and do a city state is the minimun.
But I believe we should to look after other spots of the globe before start to do more Euro city states. They may be important, but in real map location they just make a very big mess, and I want to see all map full, not just Europe.


A map of city states, just how mess it is in Europe.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,472
Yeah, it's pretty strange that Kyiv wasn't added as city-state in Civ6. Not only Kyiv, but also Vienna and Prague. Some people may say that would be Eurocentric to add so these cities into the game, but there are some very important cities outside Europe that should be in the game, such as Teotihuacan, Ife, Caral and Pagan.
AFAIK As in game CS there are more from Africa, Continental Americas and what's once called Ocenia.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,472
Where is Pagan? I search in google and just found articles about paganism:lol:
.
A City in What's now Myanmar, located by the river of Irrawaddy and near Mandalay (Also a Capitol in Kaungbaung era, actually a very modest ones compared to previous cities).
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,393
Location
Texas
I'm these "some people" :lol:
Once I tryied to set a game in Civ 6 (Vanila) with all civs and all city states avaible in real location Earth. And I just can't because Europe is so small and so full of Civs and City States. I need to put some cities as Brussels and Amsterdan outside Europe in order to be avaiable to do my full map. I believe the developers need to do a very huge map in order to have space for every European be alocated in Europe.

Meanwhile, other regions of the globe stay very empity as Brazil, USA or Australia.
Well to be fair cities such as Amsterdam, Stockholm, and Lisbon aren't city-states anymore with all the DLC and Expansions.

Also hard to find a city-state in Australia unless you don't have Australia as a civ. :p
I do agree about more city-states located in either present-day Canada or the USA for Native Americans. There's definitely a big PNW hole whether it be the Haida or Tlingit. :mischief:
 
Top Bottom