...it could be that some Magyar men ride with them or joined decendants about 450 years later -and that is why Austria has to be combined with huns? Wouldn´t it be better to create a complete hunnic civ in that case?
Okay. Firstly, I highly doubt that the Huns had "deformed faces." After all, unless something extraordinary has escaped the attention of historians, the Huns were human beings, just like you and me. Yes, Europeans might have been prone to giving Huns an unflattering physical description, but humans are prone to exaggeration, particularly if the subject in question is a seemingly unstoppable force that threatens to eradicate everything they know under an alien and foreign hegemony. However, just as Western Europe and nations descended from Western Europe tend to view the Huns as evil and barbaric, the Hungarians seem to hold strongly to a view that's much more flattering, and consider Attila himself as a heroic figure. This fact, when I first found out about it, surprised me quite a bit, but who's to say that the Hungarian view of the Huns is any less valid than the Western European view? And who's to deny the Hungarians if they insist on their descent from the Huns?
When making a global scenario, it's important (at least for me) to see things from all the parts of the different regions of the globe as much as possible. This is why I split China up into two and am seriously considering doing the same thing to India. That means I can't just consider the Western-European-North-American perspective, but must also consider all the other perspectives. Like the Hungarians', for instance. This is why I pair the Hungarians with the Huns. The Huns were a significant force that did shape the history of a significant part of the globe. The Hungarians claim they're descended from these Huns, and were themselves later part of a union that would be a somewhat significant force that would incidentally affect the history of the globe. The side effect is that, yes, the Austro-Hungarian Empire does get paired with the Huns because of the HUNGARIAN part of its union. I know a lot of Western Europe and North America probably think of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as Austria, but I see both sides of the union as equally important. Consequently, I have to consider the Hungary bit just as carefully as the Austria.
Now here's the thing. I have exactly 31 slots in which I'm trying to include as much of the globe as possible in a combination that puts together the most excitement and challenge while refraining from sacrificing history as much as possible. This means that nations that were less significant to their regions don't get included, or are simply designated as "barbarians" (As a side note, Germany, France, and Rome are in for a nasty surprise if they try to settle Switzerland. Let's just say if they really want to settle there, they'll definitely have to earn it
).
What does this have to do with Austria-Hungary, and the Huns? Well, the Huns were, whatever you might think of them, an indisputably significant force in history on a scale that could reasonably be measured in a global context. Austria and Hungary without the Austro-Hungarian Empire? Not so much. Sure each of them were regionally somewhat significant for a time on their own, but they didn't really affect the world in a globally measurable sense until after they formed the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Does this mean Austria and Hungary on their own couldn't have become global-contextually significant without being members of the Austro-Hungarian Empire? No, but the point is moot since they did enter into a union and did choose to make a mark on history together rather than separately. This means, in the context of this particular civ3 scenario, there can be no Austria without Hungary, but that also, because of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, there can be no Hungary/Huns without Austria.
Honestly I'm not quite clear on what the big deal is, even if it was to be true that everyone playing the game would happen to have a negative impression of the Huns. See, I put, for example, the British and the Dutch together as one civilisation (which, by the way, is far more mad than putting the Austrians and Hungarians/Huns together), but no one is going to look at that and think "Oh, the Dutch must be the same as the British" unless they, being morons, were thinking that already. Neither is anyone going to look at the American civilisation and think that Americans are not European-descended because they begin with a distinctly Native American flavour and continue like that until the Age of Discovery (the equivalent of when Europeans begin landing on America). In the same way, no one is going to think that the Austrians or the Austro-Hungarians are the same thing as the Huns just because they played a game where the Hunnic civilisation became the Austro-Hungarian civilisation as time went by.
Whoa, that's kind of crazy. Never knew about that practice. I'm curious what the developmental effects of that are. My first thought is it seems like a bad idea. But if the Paracas cone-head skulls were 25% larger than today's skulls, could it be possible that that would also eventually lead to growing a larger brain in the extra space and thus being smarter? We'll probably never know. But regardless, that's a far-out practice to learn about!
