Why I think Austria should rather NOT be a Civ...

[Wernazuma III]

Re: Why I think Austria should rather NOT be a Civ...

OK Ecthelion, here are some points I don't agree with you:

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ecthelion
face it, Austria is as much a German kingdom ad Bavaria, Saxonia, Thuringia... and Prussia

just after the rise of the Habsburg family, the 30 years war and the Napoleonic wars, Austria had received more and more independance from the Empire...

At first I'd say that in the time before 1815, ALL german dutchies, kingdoms etc. had more freedom. And because Austria was ruled by the same person as the Empire and few people outside of Austria listened to the Emperor, Austria essentially WAS the empire...

so don't even think, as much as they were powerful in the past, that they are an independant nation...

We aren't, but that's more because of the EU than for something else... Beside that, Austria IS a souveraign independant nation (NOT culture though)

ebcause if Austria is considered an empire/civ as such, then so should be Prussia... and then we can forgetthe whole German civilization

As I said, I'm also against an Austrian Civ, but there are several reasons why I would include it before including Prussia: a) Austria's history reaches back much more than Prussia and it was a power for much longer and b) although Austria belongs essentially to german culture, it definitely has more unique elements than prussians (especially the slavic influences in Music and Literature, the high extent of Austrian bureaucracy, the strong catholic element pushed by the Habsburg counter-reformation, multiethnicity and much more).

[Ecthy]

Re: Re: Why I think Austria should rather NOT be a Civ...

At first I'd say that in the time before 1815, ALL german dutchies, kingdoms etc. had more freedom. And because Austria was ruled by the same person as the Empire and few people outside of Austria listened to the Emperor, Austria essentially WAS the empire...

Fair enough point, hadn't considered that... but then the German emperor sure was not the Austrian King/Emperor, was he? I think the man who dissolved the Empire in 1806 was not the Austrian King, since the Austrians were fighting Napoleon most of the time, whilst the dissolution of the Empire was a consequence of the war and Napoleon demanding the Emperor's title for himself.. or something like that

We aren't, but that's more because of the EU than for something else... Beside that, Austria IS a souveraign independant nation (NOT culture though)

Well, of course Austria is, I just have to look at the map to realize that

As I said, I'm also against an Austrian Civ, but there are several reasons why I would include it before including Prussia: a) Austria's history reaches back much more than Prussia and it was a power for much longer and b) although Austria belongs essentially to german culture, it definitely has more unique elements than prussians (especially the slavic influences in Music and Literature, the high extent of Austrian bureaucracy, the strong catholic element pushed by the Habsburg counter-reformation, multiethnicity and much more).

Oh well, makes sense. But then, beaurocracy is a part of the Prussian reputation as well.. just that Prussia wasn't founded before 1701. And even if you count the time of the Brandenburg duchy in, you just get to an existance of about 400 years... but then... the US is even about 220 years old only and is a whole civ! Unrecht!

[Jason]

Another reason to include Austria more than Prussia (Though either is a longshot for an expansion civ) is that Prussia is already included as Germany. The leader is Bismarck after all. The Germany that exists today is "truncated Greater Prussia" as much as it is old "Germany the geographical expression" that included Austria and Bohemia.

[Wernazuma III]

Re: Re: Re: Why I think Austria should rather NOT be a Civ...

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Fair enough point, hadn't considered that... but then the German emperor sure was not the Austrian King/Emperor, was he? I think the man who dissolved the Empire in 1806 was not the Austrian King, since the Austrians were fighting Napoleon most of the time, whilst the dissolution of the Empire was a consequence of the war and Napoleon demanding the Emperor's title for himself.. or something like that

AFAIK, except for one Wittenbacher (Bavarian), all german emperors from the 16th cent. onwards have been Habsburgs and therefore also were dukes of Austria, Styria etc. etc. Emperor Franz, who ruled in the napoleonic era was until 1806 Franz II of Germany and since 1805 Franz I of Austria. He dissolved the Empire a) under the pressure of Napoleon and b) because it didn't make sense anymore, he had no actual power in non-habsburg territory of the Empire.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Jason
Another reason to include Austria more than Prussia (Though either is a longshot for an expansion civ) is that Prussia is already included as Germany. The leader is Bismarck after all. The Germany that exists today is "truncated Greater Prussia" as much as it is old "Germany the geographical expression" that included Austria and Bohemia.

that's the whole point of the thread, man

thanks wernazuma, I ahd forgotten that almost each Emperor was actually Austrian in the last few hundred years...

[siredgar]

I still think it would be quite nice to have Austro-Hungarians.

It would be great for playing World War I scenarios.

[Jason]

Clearly, we should make Prussia and Austria civs and remove the Germans. They're just stuff to fight over.

Uniform standards for civilizations don't exist, so why not

[siredgar]

Germans should stay

Dear Jason,

I am not suggesting that the Germans should be taken out and replaced by Austrians and Prussians. What I am saying is that if you're going to add more Civs, why not add the Austro-Hungarians (at least the Huns)?

Sir Edgar

[chiren]

Originally posted by Jason
Clearly, we should make Prussia and Austria civs and remove the Germans. They're just stuff to fight over.

Uniform standards for civilizations don't exist, so why not

very bad idea. than you also should make the saxon (and maybe bavarian) civ.
because saxon controlled the saxon territory like it is today, part of thuringia and czech republik of today and whole poland plus some territory east of poland today. including parts or whole) lithuania...
so the saxons also had its time in history...
germany is not prussia like it is not saxony or bavaria

[Jason]

For some reason when I think of Saxony, I think of "a place for Frederick II to park his armies when he gets bored with Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia."

[Umgssda]

You people should rather play Europa Universalis instead of Civ 3 :-)
To stay with civilization I would find it rather confusing if I read, that a german city rather goes with austria because of the high 'culture'.

[siredgar]

It's not implausible.

Austria is afterall a very civilized society.

[Fresno]

The Austrian role in history (both cultural and political) is really huge. But it would be weird to have both Germans and Austrians in the game. Maybe Civ4 should be more like Europa Universalis, because in that game all German countries are independent (also the smaller ones).

On the other hand, then the name 'Civilization' wouldn't be suitable anymore, since I don't think for example Hannover should be considered an independent civilization.

[Oligarf]

Hard to say, Austria was important, but I think you shouldn't see the Germans in the game as the people from Germany, but the peoples from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Prussia, Sudeten. I agree that making Austria an independent Civ is not a good.

[Fresno]

I don't think the people in Sudeten would agree with that...

In the current situation a civ seems to be more like a nation then like a people. We should try to find out what the majority thinks about that...



I'm going to make a thread about that!