Can a case be made for a Ukrainian civ for a Europe map?

[Cian McGuire]

My idea:

1. There has almost always been a civilization of some merit directly north of the Black Sea in the region currently known as the Ukraine from the 3rd century or so B.C. From the Scythians to the Samartians to the Goths to Khazars to the Antes Federation (the first definite Slavic community) to the foundings of the Kievan Rus.
2. Subjugated by the Mongol raiders and incorporated into the Golden Khanate in the 13th century and then swallowed by the expansion of Muscovy in the 16th century, the subsequent Ukrainian populace has managed to remain a distinct cultural group, especially through the efforts of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the later Uniate, or Greek Catholic, Church which managed to keep almost all of the Orthodox liturgy intact.
3. Several important revolts were staged throughout the history of the subjugation of the Ukraine, including Hetman Bohdan Chmielnicki's of 1648-54 against Poland-Lithuania and then Muscovy, Hetman Ivan Mazepa's inclusion in the Great Northern War alongside Sweden against the Russian Empire, the national and cultural in the late 1800's, the establishment of a Ukrainian Central Council after the Russian Empire's overthrow in 1917- which followed with a complete declaration of Ukrainian independence after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1918 which managed to last for four tumultous years until it's inclusion as one of the founding republics of the USSR, the initial welcoming of the German Werhmacht in 1941 and it's use of Ukrainians as collaborators against the Soviet Union, all of which was ended in the declaration of the Republic of Ukraine in 1990.
4. Aesthetically, the inclusion of a state north of the Black Sea would act as an excellent counterweight, and fill some of the void of the Russian steppes.

Any disagreements?

[Serb]

Russians consider Kiev Rus as their root. I see no single reason why Ukraine should be separated from Russia. We share our history.

[Lord Merciless]

The reason why Ukrain becomes a country in the first place was that power hungry local policians wanted to be their own boss.

The cultural difference between Russians and Ukrainians is probably less that between Beijing and Shanghai.

[Cian McGuire]

Russians consider Kiev Rus as their root. I see no single reason why Ukraine should be separated from Russia. We share our history.

All based on a false mythology. The Grand Dukes of Muscovy were seeking a way to legitimize their grab for power, and they used a tie to the much earlier Kievan Rus as a means to do so. There was no actual ties between the 16th century and the 13th century Kievan Rus; in fact, Muscovy originally worked for those who overthrew the Rus- the Mongols in the form of the Golden Khanate- as their priciple tribute and tax collectors.

The reason why Ukrain becomes a country in the first place was that power hungry local policians wanted to be their own boss.

That is so incredibly biased as to be not only incorrect, but ultimately misleading.

They wanted their own country to escape the depredations that being subjugated to Moscow and the "Great Russians" had inflicted on the general populace.

The cultural difference between Russians and Ukrainians is probably less that between Beijing and Shanghai.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Not to mention that we're not discussing a difference on a world-wide scale, but on an intra-European one. I believe for a siginifcant portion of the time of settlement in that part of the world the indepence of a Ukrainian state in one form of the other sufficiently outweighs the paltry 500 years or so that there was direct outside control.

[Orz]

I think that Ukrainians and Russians are culturally quite close... They have differences indeed but they are close.

To the contrary to the Serb's opinion I think that the Ukrainians might have reasons both to unite and not to unite with Russia. cons/pros:

Reason's not to:

1) The painful memories from the repressions during soviet rule.
2) Russia is in war
3) I believe that Ukraine is experiencing economical and social hardships. Maybe in Russia it is worse, I am not sure.
4) They are different nations.

Reasons to unite:
1) Together they would be a bigger country.
2) Perhaps a part of Ukrainians feel that there's no difference being an Ukrainian and a Russian? As much as I know many of the Ukrainians speak Russian. Ukraineans in Estonia DO speak Russian, for example. I could not differ russian people from ukrainean people except when I would be familiar with their family name - Ukrainean names end with an "o".

I've heard that Ukraine is not culturally homogenic. I've read that there's rather big differences between the western ukraineans and eastern ukraineans for a nation. Is there somebody from the Ukraine to clarify? I'd like to learn some more about Ukraine.

[Beren]

Suppose we would consider Ukranian civ as separate from the Russians: why is Ukrain significant enough?

[Cian McGuire]

Beren, look at the first four reasons.

Historically, there have been many dominant civilizations centered there except for the 500-year Russian interegnum. Culturally, there are enough distinctions to warrant the seperation of the two civilizations. Finally, aesthitically, there is a *huge* void on a map of Europe that would be filled with the inclusion of a Ukrainian civilization.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Cian McGuire
Beren, look at the first four reasons.

Historically, there have been many dominant civilizations centered there except for the 500-year Russian interegnum. Culturally, there are enough distinctions to warrant the seperation of the two civilizations. Finally, aesthitically, there is a *huge* void on a map of Europe that would be filled with the inclusion of a Ukrainian civilization.

Okay, I'll go for the esthetical argument. Main question remains: were they importantly enough? The ancient Krim was occupied by Greek colonist and I think the Scythians are on a level of importance equal to the Etruskans.
The fact that it remained a cultural group alone isn't enough reason to include them: There are dozens of cultural groups which can't be included because the limited size of Civilisation (think of say: the Fins and the Czech.) The fact that a certain cultural group mantained themselves I think is not really important. For example cultural groups who were overtaken long ago and incorporated into a different one still have a right to be in civ3 (Babylonians).
I don't think revolts are a reason to include a civ.
But okay: a case could be made, but I would reject it.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Cian McGuire

That is so incredibly biased as to be not only incorrect, but ultimately misleading.

They wanted their own country to escape the depredations that being subjugated to Moscow and the "Great Russians" had inflicted on the general populace.

Because USSR fvcked up the economy, the local power brokers had their chance to incite the population. Suppose China's economy is in a free fall, I won't be surprised seeing coastal provinces wanting their independence, too.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Not to mention that we're not discussing a difference on a world-wide scale, but on an intra-European one. I believe for a siginifcant portion of the time of settlement in that part of the world the indepence of a Ukrainian state in one form of the other sufficiently outweighs the paltry 500 years or so that there was direct outside control.

Just because a state existed for a brief time of period, it ABSOLUTELY doesn't mean it deserves a place as a significant civilization. I bet the Kingdom Chu has existed far longer than Ukraine can possibly imagine, but that still doesn't warrant them as a separate civilization from China.

The conclusion is: just because someone declared independence, it's still long shot from being recognized as a civilization.

For me, Russia and Ukraine have the same culture and thus belong to the same civilization.

[Serb]

Very well said.
I have nothing to add.

[Serb]

Somehow I've missed this:

All based on a false mythology. The Grand Dukes of Muscovy were seeking a way to legitimize their grab for power, and they used a tie to the much earlier Kievan Rus as a means to do so.

"The way to legitimize their grab for power"

It was really funny.
You think Dukes of Moscow of 15 century should somehow "legitimize their grab for power"?
Russia of 16 century it's not the same as USA of 21 century.

The gathering of Russian lands around Moscow's rule was recovering from 300 years of Mongol occupation and establishing new, strong enough state to prevent such thing as occupation in future.

There was no actual ties between the 16th century and the 13th century Kievan Rus;

And you claim that Kiev Rus of the 13 century was a state of Ukraine while Moscow of 15 century was a state of Russians?
No ties, my ass.
1) Population- Slavs.
2) Religion- Orthodox Christianity
3) The same culture.

in fact, Muscovy originally worked for those who overthrew the Rus- the Mongols in the form of the Golden Khanate- as their priciple tribute and tax collectors.

WTF?
Kiev Rus and Slavs were CONCQUERED by Golded horde and Slav's lands were occupied for almost 300 years.

That is so incredibly biased as to be not only incorrect, but ultimately misleading.

It is not. Lord Merciless was absolutely correct.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Who cares? I can perfectly understand what any Ukranian is saying without translator, as well as he can understand my speech. If you'll show me a single significient differncy in Russian and Ukranian cultures I'll bu you a drink.

Not to mention that we're not discussing a difference on a world-wide scale, but on an intra-European one. I believe for a siginifcant portion of the time of settlement in that part of the world the indepence of a Ukrainian state in one form of the other sufficiently outweighs the paltry 500 years or so that there was direct outside control.

WHICH STATE?
Kiev Rus?
We, Russians consider Kiev Rus as OUR root, the first Slavic state.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Orz
3) I believe that Ukraine is experiencing economical and social hardships. Maybe in Russia it is worse, I am not sure.

Russian economy is MUCH better.

[Cian McGuire]

Main question remains: were they importantly enough? The ancient Krim was occupied by Greek colonist

It wasn't really "occupied" by the Greeks. Yes, they had a trading post set up, and they had an adjacent town of artisans and traders, but the records seem to point that the area was controlled by the Cimmeranians, and later the Scythians.

I think the Scythians are on a level of importance equal to the Etruskans.

Except the area the Etruscans inhabited (north-central Italy) didn't spawn an independant or important civilization, seperate from other, leading states.

There are dozens of cultural groups which can't be included because the limited size of Civilisation (think of say: the Fins and the Czech.)

True, but the amalgamation of successive states which make up my proposed Ukrainian civ were neither insular, like the Finns, or completely dominated by minority rulers for all of history up to very recently, like the Czechs.

I don't think revolts are a reason to include a civ.

Neither do I. However, they are an indicator of a individual cultural group, which is the a valid reason to include a civ.

Because USSR fvcked up the economy, the local power brokers had their chance to incite the population.

Local power brokers? Incite the population? There was a mass uprising amongst all the peoples oppressed by Communist regimes; the Ukrainians were a part of this, and unless you claim that the entire disintegration of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries was due to "local power brokers" "inciting the population" in all of the countries from Czechloslovakia, to Poland, to Estonia, to Turkmenistan you are incorrect.

Just because a state existed for a brief time of period, it ABSOLUTELY doesn't mean it deserves a place as a significant civilization. I bet the Kingdom Chu has existed far longer than Ukraine can possibly imagine, but that still doesn't warrant them as a separate civilization from China.

Yet, if I was doing a scenario set in China (which is roughly equivalent to Europe in terms of land-size) I would include the Kingdom Chu.

It was really funny.
You think Dukes of Moscow of 15 century should somehow "legitimize their grab for power"?
Russia of 16 century it's not the same as USA of 21 century.

I don't get the tie to the (I'm assuming) American slur, however, it is true that the Princes of Moscow felt a need to justify their territorial, imperialistic intentions in the lands owned by Poland, Lithuania, and the smaller khanates owing allegiance to the Golden Horde.

First, by stating that they were the heirs of the Kievan state when in fact they were not, and second, by appointing the establishment of a new, Moscow-based Patriarch, the Tsars of Moscow felt they had sufficient reason to project their claims of superiority over 'their people'. It was merely a foreshadowing of the later claim of Panslavism.

WTF?
Kiev Rus and Slavs were CONCQUERED by Golded horde and Slav's lands were occupied for almost 300 years

Yes, they ailing state of Kievan Rus was ultimately conquered by the Horde. However, it was the Cumans who ended Kievan supremecy of the Don-Dneipr basin in the mid-1100's, and it wasn't for until 1237 that the Mongols showed up on the scene.

At this point in time, Muscovy existed as a peripheral, and wholly unimportant city-state. Also at this point in time, Vladimir-Suzdal, a reviving Kiev, and ultimately Novgorod were the pre-eminent Christian cities in the area.

Through a combination of treachery and valour, the princes of Moscow managed to over come Vladimir-Suzdal and with it claim the title of Grand Prince of Vladimir in 1364. Secondly by currying favor with the Khan they obtained the yarlyk to act as the chief tribute-gatherers for the Horde, accepting the responsibility of payments and arrears of all the other princes. Ivan I, also known as Kalita (or 'Money-Bag') spent more time on the road back and forth from Sarai than in Moscow. In 1327, Ivan Kalita helped the Mongols to suppress a rebellion by their chief rival at that time- Tver', a Christian city-state.

It wasn't until 1380 that Prince Dmitri Donskoy challenged the military might of the Mongols; while he did managed to win a stunning victory at Kulikovo in 1380, two years later he watched Moscow burn in revenge. It was during this time when Moscow was waxing powerful, but still a vassal, that they adopted the Greek word for the Rus', Rossiya, and began to refer to themselves as Russians. They never held control of Kiev, but that didn't prevent the Muscovite-Russians from believing that they were the true heirs to the Kievan succession. However, this contentious view of history wasn't accepted by the other eastern Slavs who remained beyond Moscow's control for centuries to come- and even then only submitted to the sword.

Ivan III might be remembered by the Russians as "the Great", but in the eyes of other cities, equally legitimate (if not moreso) to the claim of owning the heritage of Kiev, such as Novgorod or Pskov he was the Antichrist, and the destroyer of what they considered to be the great Russian traditions.

I can perfectly understand what any Ukranian is saying without translator, as well as he can understand my speech.

I can understand British English perfectly well, however that does not make us the same culture or civilization.

WHICH STATE?
Kiev Rus?
We, Russians consider Kiev Rus as OUR root, the first Slavic state.

Incorrectly.

The 'Great Russians' of Moscow never had a direct link to Kiev Rus until 1686 when they wrested control of "East Bank Ukraine" from Poland-Lithuania.

Similarly, Kiev Rus was not the first Slavic state, although it did grow to be the East Slav state with the greatest impact up until Muscovy's rise to international power in the seventeenth century.

And the succession of states can be roughly viewed as Scythia-> Sarmatia-> the Germanic, migratory and ephemeral states of the Goths and Alemmani -> the Hunnish state -> Khazaria -> Kievan Rus-> the assorted states of Ukraine as ruled by the Cossack Hetman-> Russian hegemony-> modern, independant state of Ukraine

[Beren]

Originally posted by Cian McGuire
Except the area the Etruscans inhabited (north-central Italy) didn't spawn an independant or important civilization, seperate from other, leading states.

The Etruskans were seperate. And there still is a huge gap between the settling of trading posts in the Krim and the spawning of the Rus Kievans.

I am still having difficulty seeing your point. You are using three reasons for a Ukranian civ: -the Scythians (greatest relevance: they occupied modern Ukrain (give or take a few))
-the Kiev Rus(greatest relevance: they occupied modern Ukrain (give or take a few))
-modern Ukrain(greatest relevance: they occupied modern Ukrain (give or take a few))

I never heard anyone arguing for a Spanish civ use the Visigoths and Celtic tribes from there or anyone arguing for a English civ use the Britons and Anglo-Saxons or for a French civ use the Gaulic tribes. Most of them argue that their civ really made a difference, that there civ was vital in the history of the world (or in your case: Europe).
You are not even getting to that point. You are having a hard time only to argue that Ukrain isn't Russian.

[Lord Merciless]

Austria is an independent state, yet it belongs to the German civilization.

Bahrain is an independent state, yet is belongs to the Arab civilization.

Cian McGuire, you are confusing statehood with civilizations. Civilization, or culture, can encompasse more than one country. Do you think how absurd a "Bahrainian Civilization" would sound, if we use your same logic about Ukraine in that case?