Civs I Plan To Create For My Expansion

[Caliban]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Not that I would have anything against a Lituanian civ. However, a Lithuanian-Polish civ might have greater chances to earn a place in an already crowded Europe.
I know they had a "Commonwealth", a powerful union that lasted several centuries. I'm not very sure about the cultural link, though. Could you tell me more about this?

Indeed, that is true! In 1386 the princess of Poland married a lithuanian prince. This resulted in a union between Poland and Lithuania that created a giant country reaching from today’s Lithuania to the Black Sea! A large part of the country we know as Ukraine today was Lithuanian at that time. But this giant expansion led to inner problems (corruption and waste in Civ terms!) and made the Lithuanian-Polish union vulnerable for foreign influence (by Russia for example). So the union rapidly lost its power after instituting free elections for the Polish king in 1572, which led to struggles between local aristocrats who just wanted to promote their interests and only obeyed to the ruler they did like.
Culturally, the Polish king considered all Lithuanians and Poles as Polish citizens of common origin...

[Sonic]

In fact it was a bit different...

COuntries didn't united to one in 1386, just some alliance against Teutonic knights was written up. The unification followed much later after many years. It happened because of lack of lands in Poland and also because Lithuania, which had huge lands, was losing a war against Russia in Livonia. So countries united. However, new Poland-Lithuania was just a shade of former Lithuanian glory. PL did failed to introduce absolute power for kings which was then common in Europe. Instead coutry was ruled by kings elected by "parliament". Although this could seem democratic, this didn't helped country to defend (yes, corruption was one of problems) and after some time Lithuania was annexed by Russia, while poland - by Austria-Hungary, Prussia. In it's last years Poland-Lithuania applied a constitution, which was third in the world.

Yes, PL lasted for several centuries, but Lithuanian Great Duchy also did. And only at a start PL was such a powerful country.

More discution on werether Poland or Lithuania had more influence in the world here (look to posts made by me and Heresson):

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55758&highlight=greatest

As for closely related countries I agree. For example, I think Roman Empire stands for not only Roman Empire in civ3, but also Byzantine Empire, short-lived Western Roman Empire and maybe current days Italy (well, it would be almost impossible to create Italy as a civ anyways, because cities would overlap and there would be for example 2 Romes if both civs would play). I do also agree it is possible to include Poland-Lithuania or Austria-Hungary. However, I don't think Slavic would make any sense. Most of Slavic people were from Russia, which means Russia already represents them in civ3. Others were from Poland, etc. It wouldn't make a sense to have Russia, poland and "slavs" in one game. This would be the same as create both Israelis and Jews.

[Heresson]

I think that if you want to include all these civs in a game then better try to make an Eastern European scenario (with Poles, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Serbs, Turks, and so on).

While Lithuanians were for several centuries one nation with us, and Hungarians could theoretically have something in common with us, Serbian and Turk history, religion, culture
is completely different, and they can not be merged with us into one civ. Turks should be a nation of their own.
Serb shouldn't be mentioned, unless You wish to create a Balkan Slav or Balkan civilization. But even then, a better nation to represent Balkans would be Bulgaria without a doubt.

Lithuanian Great Duchy would be a good choice, except for Poland. There would be two Polish civs, then.

Prussia... Well, it was unique, but in fact name Prussia is misleading. The origin of "Prussian" militarism, autocratism
etc, is Brandenburg. Prussians themselves were tied to more "democratical" rules and had been revolting against
Hohensollerns in the name of them and of Poland.
Up to they realised that sadly, Poland lost interest in them, and even let their leader to be kidnapped and executed.

Slavic civ makes no sense, if Poland would be in it...
Panslavism was a Russian invention, welcomed warmly but minor Slavic nations such as Czechs, but never Poles.
Polish delegates weren't present on Slavic council in prague and generally we were always claimed by Russians to be the traitors of Slavic brotherhood.
You see, being Slavic is by Russians associated to being
orthodox. While saying something about cultural unity
of Serbs and Russians for example may have some sense,
it does not have sense when it comes to Poles and Macedonians for example... Religion is very important here... Croatans and Serbs speak the same language,
but they distinguish themselves by religion...
And even if the religion is common, as in between
Poles and Croatians or Slowenians, the historical ties are
close to none. I'd say that merging Slavic civilizations is like merging all Romanic civs, from Brasilians to Romanians, or Germanic from Americans to Danes.

Dacia was conquered by the romans in 106 and this is when the history of the romanian nation begins

That's Romanian propaganda. The truth is that Roman settlers were withdrawen when Romans left the area,
and Vallachs came later, when they were pushed out
from south of Donau.

Don't forget that Moldavia and Vallachia were vassals of Poland too - Moldavia for a really long time, Vallachia quite short

Lithuania - leader Duke Giedymin, King Mindog or President Smetona
gls - Duke Witold, Duke Giedymin (if someone else would be chosen as a leader), Duke Kiejstut, Duke Jawnuta, other dukes
Cities - Vilnius (capital), Kaunas, Klaipeda, Siauliai, Panevezys, Alytus, Taurage, Utena, Trakai, Kernave, Ukmerge, Palanga, Kretinga, Anyksciai, Kedainiai, etc.
UU - ANBO aircraft, which changes fighter but requires no resources to build (real ANBO aircraft were built in the late interwar period by not a factory, but single man (no need for resources comes from here) and formed Lithuanian Air Force then)

I'd rather have it this way
Litwa - leader Wladyslaw Jagiello or Alexander or Zygmunt August or Jozef Pilsudzki
gls - Krzysztof Mikolaj Radziwill, Mikolaj Krzysztof Radziwill, Krzysztof Radziwill, Pawel Jan Sapieha, Jozef Pilsudzki
Cities - Wilno (though capital in Warsaw), Kowno, Klajpeda, Szawle, (Poniewiez, Olita, Taurogi, Uciana), Troki, (Polaga, Kretynga), Kiejdany. Grodno, Witebsk,
Polock, Smole?sk, Mohylew, Mi?sk, Homel, Nowogrodek,
Pi?sk, Brzesc Litewski
UU - the same as Polish

Seriously, as You backed off from Lithuanian tradition by
banning Polish language out of your heart and of your state, You can claim only for the post ww1 history, which You in fact do, claiming only for cities that belong today to Lithuania.
Polish-Lithuanian, or Polish civ would be better.

Culturally, the Polish king considered all Lithuanians and Poles as Polish citizens of common origin...

Lithuania was kind of absorbed into Poland; it was put under iurisdiction of Polish church, and Lithuanian families
were "adopted" by Polish noble families so that they could
claim for a coat-of-arms. Lithuania quickly polonised; though Lithuanians were tied to the separatity of their Grand Duchy, they felt open to Polish culture, and Lithuania was kind of new Poland - just the way as Polish duchies in the west turned German. Lithuanian language as something else than a language of peasants was completely abandoned except for Klajpeda region,
which was outside of Lithuania; Lithuania was Polish and
it gave out many Lithuanians - Poles, as Mickiewicz, S?owacki, or Pilsudzki. Sadly, in modern times Lithuanian extremists managed to rebuild the feeling of national separatity towards Poles in the western Lithuania, while eastern remained faithful to its tradition.

COuntries didn't united to one in 1386, just some alliance against Teutonic knights was written up.

Not true. Lithuania was "applicare" to Poland according to the treaty. This could mean several things, including
theoretical incorporation.

Polish-Lithuanian constitution (which in fact finally
destroyed the last separations of Lithuania to Poland)
was second in the world, not third. Works over French started earlier, but were ended later.

[Zero]

If you can prove to me that X was once a great civilization, I think it deserves to be in civ. Would agree.
Of course though, geographically spreading the civ should be important for world map and not have all the civ start out in europe (the most troubled crowd spot.) But other than that, why exclude the possibility of one civilization to enter the game called civilization? (and especially especially when someone just wants to unofficially mod a civ)

I agree with sonic about ethnicity tho, ethnic groups dont make a civilization.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Heresson
While Lithuanians were for several centuries one nation with us, and Hungarians could theoretically have something in common with us, Serbian and Turk history, religion, cultureis completely different, and they can not be merged with us into one civ. Turks should be a nation of their own.

Was this addressed to me? Because you quoted me in the beginning and then wrote like I was in opposition with you, while I've said exactly the same thing as you, that it's not a good idea to combine all these nations in a common civ. An Eastern European scenario would mean using all these civs separately.

Edited: The only difference is that I thought a slavic civ would be OK. I guess it's not.

That's Romanian propaganda. The truth is that Roman settlers were withdrawen when Romans left the area,
and Vallachs came later, when they were pushed out
from south of Donau.

I'm hungarian so believe me I wish it was true. The truth is we don't know for sure. Probably the roman settlers were withdrawn when Romans left the area,
and maybe Vallachs came later, when they were pushed out from south of Donau, after all it would have been quite impossible to live permanently in this area, with all the huns and avars and bulgars and other warriors moving back and forth all the time. But for sure the romanian is a romanic language so they must have something in common with the romans and also (it it's true) some dacic words survived the centuries in the romanian vocabulary. So maybe it was already the romanians who left and later came back. Not that it matters too much anymore.

[Heresson]

oh, sorry, yes, You are right. I was sleepy I guess...

Perhaps genetic researches could reveal the truth.
But I can't believe that Dacia could be latinised through
just 1,5 century of Roman rules... It would be strange.
Especially that Roman province covered only a part of it.
But n the south of Donau, everything from Black sea
(except for the southern hellenised part) to Adriatic was
latinised - some Aromanians are there left. I think that
Romanians fleed into Carpathes during Avar-Slavic
conquests.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Heresson
Perhaps genetic researches could reveal the truth.

Now that's an idea that would horrify some historians, I guess.
"Hear this, the real, undiputable truth about the past could be revealed! Horror!

[Heresson]

[Sonic]

Heresson...

Well, firstly I am adressing to your common renaming of Lithuanian cities to Polish names. This shouldn't be done because of many reasons:
1.These cities are now in Lithuania and thus they should be callled Lithuanian names (I am not naming Warshaw "Varsuva" when I am talking about it).
2.In English it is commonly accepted to name Lithuanian cities in those names, and we are currently talking in English forums (I am also not using Lithuanian letters btw, that again shows I am actually writing ENglish names of towns, not Lithuanian. If it would be accepted to call Vilnius "Vilnews" in English, I would do so. Just like I am naming my country Lithuania, not Lietuva in these forums)

As for people names, Mindaugas and Gediminas (and many other dukes) never lived in Poland-Lithuania, just in LGD, so it is obvious Lithuanian names should be used. I am not calling Lech Walesa "Lechas Valensa" in forums.

The only place where naming "dispute" could be risen would be some names of Polish-Lithuanian time, like Jogaila/Jagielo. I however still think Jogaila should be used because he was born at Lithuania and name is Lithuanian. As for Pilsutzki I don't know - probably Polish name should be used here and Lithuanian name for Mickevicius.

Also, please tell what Polish UU should be? I can't think of any possible unit...

As for claiming, I've didn't claimed other cities because most of them weren't actually ethnic Lithuanian. Heartland of Lithuania always was where it is now, I could however claim a few more cities - those are Augustaw in Poland, also Gardin, Lida in Belarus. These cities had more Lithuanian tradition.

Also, seriously not many people at eastern Lithuania wants closer relations with Poland. Also, separarity between Poland and Lithuania really exists (ethnic, not historic) and it is big. Lithuanians are Baltic, while Polish are Slavic for example. People who claims that are not extremists at all. I know however a few people who thinks that Lithuania should retake lost lands in northeast Poland (ones, which were given to Lithuania in 1939) militarily. Those maybe are extremists, but not ones who claims Lithuanians are different from Polish.

[Heresson]

You misunderstood me.
There are two Lithuanian traditions;
one of them is Polish. That's what I wanted to show You all...
Mindog and Giedymin lived in historical duchy (kingdom under Mindog) of Lithuania, a state that later trsnsformed
into one of two parts of the Republic. You can't say
"we're taking tradition up to the union with Poland only"
Either You take it all, or not a part of it.
It's kind of schisophrenia. On one hand You are angry when
I call the Republic Poland, not Poland-Lithuania. On other hand, as we've seen on your Lithuanian mod proposal,
You treat the period after the union with Poland up to
the modern Lithuanian days as if it didn't exist. You don't
feel Polish Lithuania as your own, You cut off from it - than
You cut off also from its earlier history, when it wasn't yet
Polish-cultured
Oh, I noticed my mistake I always make. It's Pilsudski, not Pilsudzki.

Why Lithuanian name for Mickiewicz? He was as Lithuanian as Pilsudski.

Augustow? Lida? They have Polish-Lithuanian tradition.
In Poland, only Sejny over the border have some Lithuanian-Lithuanian minority. And if You don't
claim for historically Lithuanian, but ethnically
not Lithuanian cities, why do You claim for Vilnius/Wilno?

no-one says about that there are no ethnic differences between Poles and Lithuanians. Of course there are.
Still, until very modern days, the language of half of Lithuania, and of all cultural part of it was Polish.

Lithuanian claims to northern Poland? By what?
Except for little Sejny, no-one speaks Lithuanian there.
By historical rights? You backed off from great Duchy tradition - modern day Poland is a continuation of tradition
of both Kingdom of Poland and Great Duchy of Lithuania.

I doubt Lithuanian Lithuanians of eastern Lithuania
want closer relations with Poland - as recent law of
citizenship shows, You are still on a level of looking on everytjing through the glasses of nationalism.
Still, Poles of two regions they are still majority in
want closer ties with Poland.

[Sonic]

Heresson...
There is almost no such Polish-Lithuanian tradition remaining. There is however Lithuanian tradition. That tradition did never dissapeared anywhere, cause if it would have did, we wouldn't now be called Lithuanians. That Lithuanian tradition firstly started in LGD, later after unification with Poland it mostly came to rural citizens, while rich ones were polonised. In the first Russian occupation rural people kept that tradition. Tradition did not only included language, but also folk songs, way of life, etc. After WW1 Lithuania still had two traditions. Polish, mostly used by aristocracy and Lithuanian mostly used by other people. However, in current days Polish tradition is almost nonexistant, because all aristocracy was destroyed (killed, exiled or ran away on themselves) under Soviet regime. We however kept our ages-long Lithuanian tradition.

Well, I am not actually cutting Polish-Lithuanian history off, however I don't think those times were the ones Lithuania was strongest. It was stronger before. In the interwar period although it wasn't strong, it was very modern, also, many things, like flag or anthem, were estabilished at that time.

As for names, I consider Pilsudski Polish because it's Lithuanian writing "Pilsuckis" has the not Lithuanian surname ending "uckis", while Mickevicius has common Lithuanian ending "evicius". I don't know though, i could be wrong.

Vilnius is ethnically Lithuanian now (52% Lithuanians), it was built by Lithuanians, etc. I said I am not claiming cities like Moscow because they although were once controlled by Lithuanians had much more importance to other cultures. While Vilnius for example had the most importance to Lithuanian culture, then Polish, the Russian.

Claim on northern Poland is based on both historical rights and also Lithuanian minority living there. In the same way radicals also claims some Belorussian controlled lands.

What citizenship law? If you mean a law about ability to get double-citizenship than that law is actually non-patriotic at all. Because before now every Lithuanian had to choose weher to live and now he could got double-citizenship... This might just make more Lithuanians to emmigrate.

[Heresson]

Mickiewicz has ending -icz, which means "son of"
in Polish. For example, "Panicz" ment "son of Pan,
son of the nobleman.

Vilnius wasn't built by Lithuanians. By the time it was rebuilt after burning it by Russians in XVII century, it was hardly ethnically Lithuanian. It has Lithuanian origins -as well as Poles in Lithuania - they represent part of Lithuanian society that got polonised, and You for example represent those that haven't. Both have right to Lithuanian tradition.

Your claims for Poland and Byelorus may have historical
reason, but hardly any ethnical. There are no Byelorussian lands inhabited by Lithuanians, but by Lithuanian Poles - that got largely rusificated during last 50 years due to similarity of languages.

I mean the law that says that citizens of Lithuania
that emigrated to country inhabited by their fellowmen (Poles to Poland, Jews to Israel) can't get back their
citizenship, unlike Lithuanians of Lithuanian roots.
Also, You can get back your citizenship onl;y if You claim yourself to be Lithuanian (ethnical), and at least one of your grandparents in Lithuanian.