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

[Ecthy]

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... though even in 1848, on the national congress in Frankfurt, Austria was a part of the newly-founded Greater German Empire.... which was never created, but that is another story.... it is actually only for the Austro-Prussian differences in the 1860s that Austria was not a part of the 2nd Reich, so don't even think, as much as they were powerful in the past, that they are an independant nation... ebcause if Austria is considered an empire/civ as such, then so should be Prussia... and then we can forgetthe whole German civilization

I'm not being nationalistic or anything, I really think Austria's independance is... 'a waste product of history'

[Ecthy]

now it would really be cool if a Moderator could change the title from "...NOt..." to "...NOT..."

[kmj]

I could be wrong, I'm no scholar on european history, but I though austria had actually established a unified cultural identity (including a solid independent government) long before Prussia did... did my history teacher lie to me?

[Ecthy]

yeah, sure, very true, most likely, but that doesn't make it 100% elligible for being an independant civ... look, Austria deserves to be a civ just like Bavaria or Prussia do, and at least Bavaria was a kingdom from the middle ages on, like Austria. Even though Prussia didn't exist as a kingdom before 1703, it was about as significant for central European history as Austria... (Prussia was stronger also )

Anyway, this is halfway 'wish-thinking'.. in my opinion civ should be a game more of cultures/ethnic groups, not of nations or so... therefore, no civ-status for the US, not even for the Germans... if I was responsible for all that, we would play with tribes like Saxonians, Franks, etc.... and if some guys want to play as the US, fine, the game would have a flexible starting time... bah, this is still confusing and has no structure, anyway, Austria is like Bavaria and Prussia and therefore deserves no civ slot, unlike Hungary. End of the story

[kmj]

I understand. Everyone has their own feelings on how it should be... hey, that's why the editor is there. Don't like a civ? get rid of it! make your own set of civs.

[Ecthy]

very true

any more ideas on this? I really think that the idea of putting Austria in would be an exaggeraiton... you want more Europeans? put in Poles and Hungarians, if not Turks and Spaniards anyway

[Wernazuma III]

Though I don't agree with Ecthelion in all what he says (I won't expand on this), especially:

I'm not being nationalistic or anything, I really think Austria's independance is... 'a waste product of history'

, I agree that Hungarians, Polish, Yugoslav and maybe even others deserve much more to be considered a unique Civ, worth of being included.
Basically, in short words, we Austrians are alpine germans with strong balcanesque, czech and hungarian influence (and thus much more melancholic and funnier at the same time).

[History Guy]

Austro-Hungarian Empire

Yes, I'd have to agree rather, although Austria had a nice sized empire in it's own right. It's Empire however was extremely short lived, and was destroyed in World War I when Franz Joseph was in charge. When the Austrians took Bosnia and then Serbia, a bunch of nutters formed the 'Black Hand', which was the terrorist group that did in Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Sophie on that fateful drive through Sarajevo, thus starting the Great War. The Austrian Empire survived for only about 80 years at maximum, and was at it's greatest extent with the Hapsburgs. To give you an idea of this, just remember that Emperor Maximillian whom Napoleon III sent to Mexico (and whom was shot by Juaristas) was a Hapsburg prince and brother to Franz Joseph. However, the Austro-Hungrarian Empire was too small and short lived to really be given the distinction of being included as a Civ.

[Wernazuma III]

Re: Austro-Hungarian Empire

Originally posted by History Guy
It's Empire however was extremely short lived, and was destroyed in World War I when Franz Joseph was in charge.

Franz Josef died 2 years before the end of the war. In 1918, emperor was his son Karl.

When the Austrians took Bosnia and then Serbia, a bunch of nutters formed the 'Black Hand',

We actually took Serbia only IN the war (1915), that's why after the assessination we sent an ultimatum to the serbians.

The Austrian Empire survived for only about 80 years at maximum, and was at it's greatest extent with the Hapsburgs.

In those 113 years you're talking about, Austria was ruled only by the Habsburg.
NTL, Austria before becoming an empire and before giving up the german crown was already a very important "european player" for a long time.
Culturally though, we are too little distinct from the germans to be considered a unique Civ.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
(and thus much more melancholic and funnier at the same time).

you really think characteristics like these are made by racial heritage?

[Ecthy]

Re: Re: Austro-Hungarian Empire

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Though I don't agree with Ecthelion in all what he says (I won't expand on this)...

come on... there's nothing I hate more than indications where there could be explanations and points... what is it then that you don't agree with? I know my knowldge is limited, so I's like to get some information (and discussion for that matter) from someone who's supposed to know better

[Jason]

I've always liked Austro-Hungary, and felt that it should just have been revised a little at the end of the Great War, rather than dissolved. After all, look what a mess that turned into.

Austro-Hungary wasn't a national state, and didn't have a unified culture, it was a German state and a Hungarian state more or less standing on a bunch of Slavs. The territorial state grew out of the expansion of the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperors' hereditary lands from countries menaced by the Ottomans. Especially after 1683, the border started going the other way and Hungary got nice and large.

Anyway, perhaps it wasn't the healthiest multinational state ever, but it has gotten such a reputation as a doomed state, I always feel bad about it. I can't stand national self-determination and the other idiocies old Wilson foisted on the world. There's an idea that's served the Balkans well

Anyway, if there was an Austria or Austro-Hungary I'd be playing it right now, but there isn't, and likely won't be. The Habsburgs may almost have achieved European hegemony, but in terms of modern recognizability, they just don't have it.

But for those in the know, A.E.I.O.U!

[siredgar]

What will the Austrians think?

I think Austrians by themselves should not have a Civ, but "Austro-Hungarians" are a strong contender. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was quite powerful and had a lot of influence in Eastern Europe. Also, this would encompass the Huns who had a lot of territory in that area, too.

My list for any expansion pack, in order of importance would be:

1. Spanish
2. Vikings
3. Mongols
4. Turks
5. Koreans
6. Portuguese
7. Dutch
8. Indo-Malays

And if there's room for more:

9. Assyrians
10. Celts
11. Carthaginians
12. Austro-Hungarians
13. Incas
14. Polish
15. Malians
16. Mayans

I think civilizations like "Byzantines" and "Arabs" overlap too much with existing Civs. The Austro-Hungarians have that same problem, too. On Locutus' poll, there are three listings:

20. Austrians/Austro-Hungarians
21. Huns
27. Magyar/Hungarians

So, obviously they are popular and I think some kind of Hun Civ would be nice and if that includes the Austrians, great!

[Wernazuma III]

Re: What will the Austrians think?

Originally posted by siredgar
So, obviously they are popular and I think some kind of Hun Civ would be nice and if that includes the Austrians, great!

So you want to tell me, Atilla was Austrian
BTW: Although the ethymology of Hungarians comes from the Huns, the Hungarians (who call themselves "Magyar") have nothing to do with Atilla and his huns. This was an invention by some medieval guys who were so afraid of the Hungarians that they identified them with the Huns.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
you really think characteristics like these are made by racial heritage?

No, of course not! But cultural haeritage yes can have large impact on collective characteristics (I don't think, Germans and Austrians have an antisemitism gene either, but they have a large cultural heritage). And Austria has many slavic influences, also genetically but I meant more culturally.