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

[Heresson]

I was really trying to avoid any comments on your "evil Czechs took our land" thing. But this is ridiculous. What junk do your history teachers fill into your heads?? YOU started the whole conflict by occupying (now the second meaning of the word is used) Tesin, part of Orava and part of Spis in November 1918.

Now You should learn history.
In former Cieszyn (Tesin/Teschen) duchy, two organisations emerged, Polish and Czech one, and they
settled on dividing the region according to nationality line
in between themselves.

Then you were trying to negotiate some "fair" deal which was unacceptable for us

why?

so we took our army and pushed you back to Visla. All this "operation" did last 7 days and was approved by The Triple Alliance. The peace treaty was also arranged by TTA and if you have such great knowledge about that, then you surely know that it was signed 28.7.1920 and while we got Bohumin railway and Coal area, you got east Tesin area and part of Orava and Spis. So, yeah without our armies Orava and Spis would have been all yours, beacouse you would have taken it from us by force. Fortunately there was, and still is, something called the Czechs to prevent Poles from being too aggressive :-)

The case looked somewhat different.
Poland was then involved in war with USSR and there was practically no army in the region - and probably only because of that your republic was so brave. Your action was not approved by anyone. In fact it is one of the most humorous events in the history I ever heard about, as your fellowmen, pretending to be delegates of the allied forces (sic!), came with a ultimatum demanding backing of Cieszyn region, despite they were recognised as Czechs.
Czech army attacked even before the time ultimatum gave
as the deadline, and took entire Cieszyn region at first, only later being pushed back to Wisla line. Later in all the
regions discussed but Czadca there was supposed to be votings, but nothing came out of it due to your attitude. Eventually, western allies actually did draw the line according to your wishes. Poland agreed on western judgement in this case in return for a mediation in the most critical part of the war against Soviets (which didn't gave us anything in fact, as Soviets were so close to crushing us they had no intention in negotiating the peace). Eventually, Poland got 49% of the territory,
with all industrial cities left on Czech side, though Poles
were 3/4 of the population (according to Austrian, not Polish, statistics), with 5-10% Germans,
Additionally,
all the speech up to Nowy Jiczyn (read; original borders of Silesia) are known in linguistics as Gwary Laskie (Lachy=Poles), and are in between Polish and Czech language, and Czechs got also entire Opava region, inhabited by Germans at this time.
Poles also got nothing of Czadca, and shreds (1/31 if I remember correctly) of Spisz and Orawa, nothing of Czadca (the truth is, however, that people in these regions, though speaking Polish, had no thought of their nationality, and today they regard themselves as Slovaks, and as such shoul be treated).
Czech pretensions to Cieszyn were motivated by several things;
1) that Cieszyn duchy, though ruled by a Polish dinasty,
was for hungreds years a fief, and later a part of Czech kingdom (on the other hand, Czechs were part of "Roman" (German) and Austrian empire at this time,
and it entire Czechy were for a while a part of Poland
1000 years ago...
2)That Czechs need the coal there
As well as everyone else
3)That communism spreads amongst the Polish workers (sic! sic!)4)That Poles that live there came en masse to Cieszyn
during Austrian rule of southern Poland, in XIX century
That is quite absurd, but to be sure, I will add that this way, Poles there should not be protestants (as practically all Poles except for some regions that were long outside of Polish Kingdom were catholic), but Czechs,
while it was the other way round; what happened to local Czechs, then?; how managed mentioned gwary laskie to emerge during 100 years only?

[Heresson]

Where is Serb?

[Arrian]

HOLY BATMAN!

Beren,

(But any American who reads this, use your sense and propagate against reelection of this fanatic.)

I assure you many of us will try.

-Arrian

[Azeem]

No offense to anyone here, but European politics seems so COMPLEX!

I guess I'm just a stupid ignorant American when it comes to these things.

(But any American who reads this, use your sense and propagate against reelection of this fanatic.)

I'll try, but I can't guarantee it. Especially when we have a fundamentalist regime.

[bobbo008]

This seems the equivelant of having a Dutch and Flemish civ to me...

[snake1234]

ukriane must be added, russians, are everyone, from uzbecks to all the others, mongols inculded. ukraine is the nation of the pure slavs, who ocne carried the flag of the slavick empire dating back to the days of rome, russian betrayed and ukraine fell just like all the other empire nations states do, now ukriane is ukraine again, the language, the culture, the food the spirit is still anicient slavick which russian is to mixed up with asia. russian is about 20 percent slav and the rest asian. so yes, ukraine must be put it, as the representation of the pure slavik rutes.

[Harovan]

Good bump . Now can we troll a bit more about Bush?

[CarnalCanaan]

Holy fazzoli!

And people wonder what I'm gonna do with a degree in Poli Sci!

Point 1: It's just a game and I think the comment made about the market potential is right on the mark, however --

Point 2: There is something to be said for "civs-within-civs" dilemmas. This Ukraine-in-Russia conflict seems pretty heated. Just imagine a Tibet-in-China conflict! What qualifies for a truly distinct and influential civilization is not necessarily the same for a nation. Keep in mind that nations are highly flexible concepts. Their definitions are often subjective and dependent on external realities (i.e. 'Canada' = North American Anglo descended post-colonial state that is NOT part of the United States). A civilization, however trancends states more often than not -- each Greek city was its own state. The question that has to be answered: Is the Ukraine a culturally independent, politically persuasive, ethno-linguistically defined group whose influence on the whole of humanity is uncontestable?

Thus, the Mongols are definitely in. As are the Maya. The Dutch and Portugese are in since they ruled a good chunk of the world. The Babylonians and Sumerians get to be distinct, even though the one subjugated the other. The Hittites, Celts and Iroquois are in because they were recognized, influencial political entities in their time -- however, much of their influence had been forgotten.

The one civ that is not in Civ3 which absolutely should be is Ethiopia (a.k.a. Abyssinia). Culturally distinct and it features a long, interesting history in conflict with other Civ3 civs (Italy [nee Rome], Arabia).

Other candidates should be:

The Hebrews (a.k.a. Israel). Narrow political definition, immesurable cultural contribution, natural rivalry with Babylon, Arabia, Rome.

The Polish. Limited political clout. Perhaps only as part of Age of Revolutions or Cold War scenario package.

The Navajo. Short, compromised political history. Indirect contact with Aztecs. Native American civ which had urban centers IRL.

The Thai: Long history. Limited importance. Alternative to Siam?

The Ghanaians: Ancient trade empire reborn as post-colonial state. At least as convoluted as 'Scandinavia'. Not necessarily more important than its West African counterparts, Mali, Songhay or Nigerians.

The Vietnamese: Unique culture. Distinct political identity (esp. relative to Americans). Would be byproduct of Vietnam War scenario.

Civs that shouldn't make it:

Any of the non-Russian slavic cultures (unfortunately) never expanded or attempted to expand far beyond their respective homelands. Fragmented, like Germany, but no recognized geo-ethnic territory, unlike Germany. The lynchpin: Their achievements do not stretch very far beyond their own borders. In fact, many of their achievements were attained under some higher, alien authority (Holy Roman Empire, Warsaw Pact, etc.)

Most central African nations and most Native American nations. The winners write history and these people's pretty much all lost. Like the Australo-Aborigines, though they are distinct and interesting, politically, they never consolidated or expanded. Even the non-Western civs (China, Azteca, India) experienced some level of political 'comings together' that constituted their civ. They had strong central political regiemes (Montezuma) or unifying events (Indian independence). And most all of the civs in the game experienced some time of expansion (or attempted expanion)... with the one oneous exception, Korea.

I do not know enough about Russo-Ukrainian history to say exactly whether Ukraine should be its own civ. But if Korea and Sumeria both may be, then the Ukraine deserves consideration. Like those two, if it does not have a long or impressive period of political influence it must have a highly distinctive, influencial and RESILENT culture. (Sumeria is still influencing us today and they don't call Korea the 4000 year nation for nothing.)

[CarnalCanaan]

Bush is a fundamentalist!?



... but seriously, folks. Someone said earlier that they "hated" strongly religious people. And therein lies the drama.

What many "mainstream" Americans don't quite get is that the religious right -- which is so vilified by the media -- is exactly what it purports to be: a fundamentalist, Judeo-Christian revival movement. As such, many of the aspects of American culture that most of us accept at progressive at best and ambivalent at worst are, to the Christian Right, an attack on their very way of life.

And when you threaten someone's way of life, they react violently (see U.S. Civil War, Confederate States of America).

One cannot necessarily approach such individuals with the same concepts of reason and prudence as one would a peer. As Luther argued, those who are not saved by God's grace are completely corrupted, including their "reason" and "logic". Thus, trying to talk reasonablly with them is like a child trying to discuss Ulysses with a literature scholar: the latter cannot respect the former's opinion beyond amusement.

Hatred on the part of the Christian Right's opponents only helps prove their point.

The trick, of course, is that fundamentalism and traditionalism breed rebellion and aggression. But NOT from or by the preceeding culture. It must come from within. So, the undermining of the Christian Right in America will come from their own disaffected (read 'sexually frustrated') youth.

Bush won (and will win) because Americans are afraid that we've finally become the a-moral, valueless society everyone accused us of being 20 years ago. And to an extent, they are right. (Have you watched MTV lately?) Bushies are nothing more than the naysayers of 80s yuppy-ism getting their due.

Bush's fundamentalism will always play second fiddle to the overriding desire for purpose which is attracted to his Christian values.

P.S. I'm still not voting for him. It's just too bad Kerry's a dimwitted loser. *sigh*

[snake1234]

i got a polly sci degree also

[McMeadows]

So much knowledge on history, so disturbingly little understanding of mathmatics.

Originally posted by Serb
...Serb, of course, who is on 1/8 is Ukranian himself...

Originally posted by Serb
...My grandMa is Ukranian, ...

Nevertheless, I myself am 25% Ukranian as well, as my grandmother is originally from Ukraine.


I couldn't follow all the arguments that passed my eyes and in the end I decided to make a poll who was most and least irritating in the way they made arguments.

CarnalCanaan, suprised me on the last page with understandable sentences that mad sense as well, so he won the popularity poll.

If it wasn't to learn a little more on my roots from grandma's side I wouldn't even have started reading. Tough thread.

[bobbo008]

I think being of a certain heritage makes you more biased towards it. I'm 1/2 Austrian, but have recently said "f*ck it" and just started saying German. I think if you make the Ukraine its own civ, you've got a huge list of other nations, too. I think Ukraine only gets a boost because of its size, but I would think Polish, Yugoslav or (Austro-)Hungarian civ would have just as much, if not more, reasons to have their own civ. Although I think there should be 100 civs since theyre not really hard or anything to put in the game...

I would like to see ANY civ from Australia or the East Indies so on a world map that area isn't completely empty (although i put the british there).

[Heresson]

Of Slavic nations, Poland played a major role in Europe for several centuries. Only in XVII/XVIII century it was overshadowed by Russia. Also, Bulgaria was very important civ, the main Byzantine rival in Europe before the crusades and before the rise of Serbia, which had a time of political importance only in XIV century, though.
Czechs played some role too.
Bulgaria and Poland are the best candidates.
Did they never expand far beyond their homeland?
Poland got as far as Elbe west, as far as Volga east,
as north as Estonia, as far as Donau south.
Bulgaria stretched over entire Balkan penisula and practically vassalised Byzantines for a short time.
On the other hand, the map is already crowded.

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by Heresson
Of Slavic nations, Poland played a major role in Europe for several centuries. Only in XVII/XVIII century it was overshadowed by Russia. Also, Bulgaria was very important civ, the main Byzantine rival in Europe before the crusades and before the rise of Serbia, which had a time of political importance only in XIV century, though.
Czechs played some role too.
Bulgaria and Poland are the best candidates.
Did they never expand far beyond their homeland?
Poland got as far as Elbe west, as far as Volga east,
as north as Estonia, as far as Donau south.
Bulgaria stretched over entire Balkan penisula and practically vassalised Byzantines for a short time.
On the other hand, the map is already crowded.

Interesting.

Poland I think ought to be in any new Civ game. They certainly have an historical presense. Also, I think that their role in the Velvet Revolution should be explored via a Civ game.

Bulgaria is a really hard one, though. Frankly, they should make a Civ list before the Ukraine, since they did expand and they were allied with the Germans, Austro-Hungarians and Ottomans during WWI (Something that gets lost in most American history books - since we never fought them.)

It seems that most of the discussion in this thread was based on the ethnic definition of a civilization. While this is a factor, it is not the only one. Discussions such as this are why ethnology is so frustrating.

[Heresson]

So we can make west-Slavic, east-Slavic and south-Slavic civ. The problem is that when someone heard "eastern Slavic civ", he wouldn't know what is it