Why Poland SHOULD be included in one of the official sets

LoD · September 18, 2001, 11:35

I am writing this post partially because Poland didn't get to the main set. I am writing this post because Poland's outlooks to get to the second set look unpromising. But I'm writing this post mostly because in the last ranking of civs to be included in the expansion was behind the Eskimos. And the Mayas. And the Sioux.

Now, wait, I take that back. I am writing this post mostly to dispel a myth quite popular among posters here. And this myth is:
Poland is some puny country in Eastern Europe, which was never powerful and who's only inventions are kielbasa and pierogies
I'll start by a simple comparison: the date universally acknowledged as the one that marks the creation of the Polish country is 966 (the christening of Poland), while the United States' Declaration of Independence dates 1776. Now here's a question: if a country with so favorable "starting conditions" as the US needed about 150 years to achieve domination, wouldn't it be likely for a country with a not as very, but also a quite nice topographical etc. situation, to achieve domination in its region?
The answer of course is yes. And indeed, Poland had been a superpower for quite a period of time. Well, in the start of course, the country was small. However, subsequently with gaining more victories in conflicts with neighbors, it grew. The most important historical occurrence, as far as territorial issues are concerned, was the unification of Lithuania with Poland. After that, the country started to enter what was its golden age. Firstly, the Republic beat the crap out of the Teutonic Knights (which were ironically invited into the region by a Polish duke, to beat the crap out of the Prussians). Not so late after country spread into an empire that stretched from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. It was quite a formidable opponent for anyone in that time. And, although its power started to fade from the 17th century, Poland still managed to accomplish some challenging feats, such as taking over Moscow and even controlling Russia for a short period of time. However, such achievements did not prevent the eventual downfall of Poland, which happened at 1795, when the three states, Russia, Prussia, and Austria signed the 3rd partitioning agreement, effectively evaporating Poland from the map of Europe for 123 years. But it failed to evaporate the Polish nation.
Enough with the historical introduction, here are my main arguments why Poles should be recognized as a nation that contributed largely to the world’s legacy. And so:
-the battle of Vienna in 1683. If not for the Polish army, the Turks would have the attack routes to Europe open before them. But they were defeated.
-the battle of Warsaw in 1920. This time the Polish forces stopped the Bolshevik approach, another menace, which, if uncontained, would engulf all Western Europe.
-as stated before, in the late XVth-XVIth-early XVIIth century period, Poland was practically a superpower – the largest country in Europe, with one of the best armies, and a prospering economy.
Finally, Polish scientists had a huge contribution in most fields of human progress. Probably the most famous one is a guy that revolutionized a lot of areas of life with his brave but simple theory. Can you guess who?

LoD

Appendix 0: These are not all arguments that I have. I’ll roll in all my cannons in due time

.
Appendix 1: I have one more myth to dispel – pierogies are not actually Polish. They are Eastern Slavic.
Appendix 2: But vodka was undoubtedly made first in Poland

!

Inverse Icarus · September 18, 2001, 12:16

i said it before:

Polish

Capital: Warsaw
Ruler: Mieczyslaw I
CSU: Light Cannon or Infantry
Ability: Scientific & Commercial

why i chose cannon:

quote:

from http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/Army.html

The Poles set great store by artillery and were years in advance of their enemies until the eighteenth century, using light cannon with accurate bombardment and mobility being the crucial factors. They also used rocketry to great effect (Siemienowicz published a treatise on multi-stage rocketry in 1650!).

--

The infantry was lightly dressed without helmets or armour and armed with musket, short sword and hatchet. Only one man in eight carried a pike. In the 1550's a Polish regiment of 200 men could fire 150 shots in five minutes (contemporary Spanish brigades of 10,000 men could only deliver 750 in the same time)! Polish infantry possessed ten times greater firepower on a man-to-man basis than standard European infantries.

i didn't choose cavalry because i think theres too many already

Col Bigspear · September 18, 2001, 13:16

Well done LoD, lets hope that turns some heads. i always used to be Poland in Civ 1 with the Custom civ function. Was Poland in CtP, CtP2 ? I was going to buy CtP2 untill I saw Civ 3 in the main menu here

.
I usually had Stanislav II as Ruler (not the best king but one of the last or thee last king of Poland) (I think) Plz excuse my lack of knowlage, my Grandparents on my dad's side were Polish and there both dead

so I can't really ask them about Poland.

Col Bigspear · September 18, 2001, 13:20

Just a thought, how many people here have Polish backgrounds?.
BTW Polish Military hats (Square) are cool

St Leo · September 18, 2001, 14:11

I think my paternal grandmother was Polish. I got my last name, Petrazickis (Petrazhitskiy), from her.

I'd rank Poles as less important than Spanish, Swedes, Turks, and Arabs and as equals of Danes, Dutch, Portuguese, and Austrians.

jsw363 · September 18, 2001, 14:11

I'm not Polish, I'm Dutch for the record. I'd like to see Poland in the game. I think that it was more historically important than the Inuits or the Sioux. (I have to admit though that I'd also really like to see the Maya).

Quote:

Originally posted by LoD
As stated before, in the late XVth-XVIth-early XVIIth century period, Poland was practically a superpower – the largest country in Europe, with one of the best armies, and a prospering economy.

Was Poland really the largest country in Europe? I could understand that it's larger than France and Spain, but the Hapsburg Empire? The HRE? Russia? Also frankly, I don't remember it being a major player in European History. Also didn't they have a feudal system of agriculture far longer than Western Europe? I don't know if it's possible to have a "prospering economy" if many people are serfs. Admittedly I'm not an expert on Polish history, so could someone clarify all this for me?

YefeiPi · September 18, 2001, 14:21

The only way I feel Poland can get in the game is by taking out some western european countries.

Too many of them in the game already!

Inverse Icarus · September 18, 2001, 14:40

bah, take out France.

who needs a pink civ anyway?

d_dudy · September 18, 2001, 14:58

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
bah, take out France.

who needs a pink civ anyway?

good one, very good one.

Gangerolf · September 18, 2001, 16:44

What's kielbasa?

DarkCloud · September 18, 2001, 18:10

The Nation of Rus was at LEAST as great as the kingdom of Lithuania and Poland

If Poland is included: Rus should be as well

kIndal · September 19, 2001, 00:28

Quote:

Was Poland really the largest country in Europe? I could understand that it's larger than France and Spain, but the Hapsburg Empire? The HRE? Russia?

Germany is smaller than France and Spain so if it was bigger than them to was bigger than HRE.
Habsburg Empire???Habsburg Empire was small, just Austria, some frontier in Hungary, Bohemia and some small possesions in South and West Germany...
The actual concept of Russia isn´t the same that the Renaissance one, I amnot sure about the size in the Polish Golden Age, but I believe that it was smaller.

krzysiek · September 19, 2001, 01:34

Strongly agree with LoD.

UberKruX, I was surprised that you put "Mieczyslaw I" as ruler of Poland. After a while I realized that you meant the first ruler of Poland commonly known as "Mieszko I".

Poland was big in 17-18-th century. Look at the first picture here http://www.horlacher.org/Poland/P1772_1795.jpg

PS. LoD, przesylam Ci pozdrowienia znad morza.

Arent · September 19, 2001, 01:56

Hi Lod,

you here?
And still arguing for some Panslavic Confederacy

Arent

Christantine The Great · September 19, 2001, 06:55

Quote:

Poland was big in 17-18-th century.

It was also quite powerless. That map is right before it was partitioned.

I think there are enough civs in Europe. And if another was to be added I doubt it would be Poland. Most likely Spain or the Vikings.

LoD · September 19, 2001, 07:36

UberKruX: Nice ideas! Personally, I'd be deciding between Gniezno (the original capital) and Warsaw as "HQs". And I'd choose either kings Mieszko I (or Mieczyslaw I as you say), Kazimierz Wielki (Casimir the Great), Wladyslaw (Vladislav) Jagiello and Jozef Pilsudski (the latter not being a king, but IMHO Poland's greatest XXth century leader).
Most Poles would say that a special unit would be the husaria. The husaria was a kind of lightly-moderately armored cavalry, which had a special feature - attached to the back plate of each rider were two vertical curved poles (not Poles

) with horizontally placed feathers (I'll find a picture of that to better illustrate the thing). This contraption generated a very loud and ominous sound when the rider was in motion. Increased in magnitude when hundreds of riders were charging simultaneously, this provided for a shattering psychological effect.
However, I find your idea about the artillery very original, and frankly, I think you have a better special unit concept.

Col Bigspear: Thanks. Nice to see some support here

.
My personal advice BTW - I'd not pick Stanislaus Leszczynski (if we're talking about the same guy), since he was a very week king.

jsw363: Nice to hear you're a supporter

.

Quote:

Was Poland really the largest country in Europe? I could understand that it's larger than France and Spain, but the Hapsburg Empire? The HRE? Russia? Also frankly, I don't remember it being a major player in European History. Also didn't they have a feudal system of agriculture far longer than Western Europe? I don't know if it's possible to have a "prospering economy" if many people are serfs. Admittedly I'm not an expert on Polish history, so could someone clarify all this for me?

I'm 100% sure that it was in its time. Russia was not always that big - think about the fact that it was countered from the east by Tatars. As for the other countries, if they would be bigger than Poland then, then Europe would have to be as twice as big to fit them all in

.
Yes, Poland had a system that become anachronicl after some time. However this allowed it to become a leading producer of food crops ("The Granary of Europe", I think what it was called). Of course eventually the progressively more popular conservatism among the nobility halted the necessary reforms, until it was too late.
Also think about the fact that in almost all European countries in the XVIth - XVIIth century most people were serfs.

DarkCloud: Russia has been included to the original set of civilizations, so you don't have to worry about that

.

krzysiek: Heh, milo w koncu spotkac rodaka na tych forach

.

Arent: Hey there

! What's up friend? And no, I'm argueing more about a Panpolonian Confederacy

.

Christantine The Great: Unfortunely, krzysiek picked the wrong time frame. You're right, Poland in the XVIIIth century was very weak, on the verge of disintegration. It has also lost a lot of wars, so the map he is presenting is not the best example. As I've said, I'll try to find a better one.

LoD

krzysiek · September 19, 2001, 07:55

Ok the map wasn't good enough, but I couldn't find a better one on the Internet.

One more interesting fact. Poland during its golden age didn't explore "new worlds" by building fleet and crossing the ocean (like Portugal, Spain, etc.) or tried to expand to western Europe. East was of primary interest for Poland.

LoD · September 19, 2001, 09:18

krzysiek: Alright. I'd tried to search for that too and so far found no satisfying results as well.
Yes, exactly. And that's the reason it's not mentioned much in the Western European and American history textbooks.

All (who are not Poles

): I'm surprised that no one so far guessed who I meant when writing this:

Quote:

Probably the most famous one is a guy that revolutionized a lot of areas of life with his brave but simple theory. Can you guess who?

Here's a hint: this man is represented by a Wonder of the World which appeared in both Civilization I and II.

Meanwhile, here's a picture of a husar's armor:

LoD

Christantine The Great · September 19, 2001, 12:12

What exactly was the reason for the hussar's wings? If he ever lost his horse I doubt he'd fly off the battlefield unharmed.

Gangerolf · September 19, 2001, 13:48

Quote:

Originally posted by LoD
Here's a hint: this man is represented by a Wonder of the World which appeared in both Civilization I and II.
LoD

Copernicus!

Inverse Icarus · September 19, 2001, 14:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf
What's kielbasa?

basically polish sausage.

LoD · September 19, 2001, 14:17

Christantine the Great: Heh, and this proves that Poles were also pioneers in aviation

. Seriously - like I've said before - the wings produced a very weird and loud sound, which, when coupled a hundred- or even a thousandfold, generated a devastating psychological effect (the Tartars thought that charging husars were demons

).

Gangerolf: Exactly

! Now guys, admit which one of you didn't know about it

?

LoD

DarkCloud · September 19, 2001, 16:29

RUS is NOT RUSSIA!
Rus is a proud nation which existed from 988-1688 in some form or another, Kiev was the original center of Russian Civilization... however, the RUSians are different from the RUSSians. The Russians are not as technically advanced as the RUSians

The RUSians were taken over by the Cossacks in 1688 and wrested from Polish Control (1400-1600), the Cossacks formed a neo-RUSian state... The Cossacks were Ukrainian to an extent...

oh, and it is Mieskowz I

But he was merely known as the first king who introduced Christianity to Poland

(interestingly enough I know a Mieskowzki in real life

)

Also interesting is the Polish system of Kingship, their kings were elected!

krzysiek · September 20, 2001, 04:51

DarkCloud, it was little more complicated. In 10-th century not every ruler of a country could be a king. Mieszko I (between 920 and 940-992) was only a prince. His son "Boleslaw Chrobry" was the first King of Poland (became king in 1025, several weeks before his death).

LoD · September 20, 2001, 05:52

DarkCloud: Ah, so you mean what we call "Kiev Rusia". Well, it was important but I don't think to that extent that it outqualifies Poland

.
And you're right, free elections were carried out after the death of the last representant of the Jagiellonian dynasty. They were effective until the 3rd May Constitution, which brought back the succesion rights (it was because the privilage of free election was abused by the nobelty, which forced promises of new rights for them by the candidates for monarchy). By the way, the said constitution was signed in year 1791, which makes it second in the World.

krzysiek: Of course you're right, Mieszko I was never a king. I can only justify myself by saying that I wrote that automatically since he was first reffered to as king in this thread. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

LoD

Henrik · September 20, 2001, 07:58

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Also interesting is the Polish system of Kingship, their kings were elected!

Well this was quite common in europe at that time (only nobility could vote though...) eventualy it was replaced by dynasties, which when left whitout hiers was replaced by a new king (elected), I dont know if they got to dynasties in poland, but I think so.

Also the polish parlament (they where also common in europe at the time, although called other things, like Riechstag, Riksdag, Sejm, etc) was unique in one way: There had to be 100% of the votes behind a sugestion if it was to pass, and as every little country lord had a vote, not much got changed (which proved fatal in the war of 1655 whit the Swedes, although the poles managed to throw out the Swedish invador, whit the help of 5 allies and a massive peasent rebelion)...

This was all after thier "Golden Age" though.
Before that Poland (and the Polish-Lituanian Comonwealth in particular) where one of the most powerfull nations in europe.
Thier knights (Hussars, or Hussaria) where definatly the best ones in europe (but they where still using them in the mid 1600's, when they where horribly outdated).

Hmm, forgot the point whit all of this, just recalling the stuff I know about Poland

DarkCloud · September 20, 2001, 17:48

Quote:

Originally posted by krzysiek
DarkCloud, it was little more complicated. In 10-th century not every ruler of a country could be a king. Mieszko I (between 920 and 940-992) was only a prince. His son "Boleslaw Chrobry" was the first King of Poland (became king in 1025, several weeks before his death).

Thank you for correcting me.

---
But the RUSians

The people of RUS conquered all the Kievan eras and owned the area between Vladimir (near Moscow) to near Byzantine.

I am also lead to believe that they were guards for the Byzantines at one point...

But, you could probably argue that the Vikings technically ruled them after 1200

then the polish around 1400

until the nearly-idigenous Cossaks came

Henrik · September 20, 2001, 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
But, you could probably argue that the Vikings technically ruled them after 1200

then the polish around 1400

until the nearly-idigenous Cossaks came

Vikings ceased to exist around 1000 AD

Ubik · September 21, 2001, 05:51

Quote:

Poland is some puny country in Eastern Europe, which was never powerful and who's only inventions are kielbasa and pierogies

...and what is wrong with kielbasa and pierogies?

ROFL

...on a more serious note, if it is 16 the numbers of the civs we should have to choose, Poland would definitely not be one of them. I'd add another pre-colombian civilization in America (Mayan seem good, but what about Tolteks?) and maybe the Spaniards - they were heavily influental nonetheless. And maybe Mongols too - they practically had the worlds biggest empire for ages.

But some should go... well, either the Franks or the Germans... and also the Iroquis (even though I admire their political system).

Definitely, not Polish. Celts, Vikings (no, they didn't stop existing after 10nth century AD - where the heck do you think the Skandinavian people derive from???) and many Asian civilizations are probably in front of Poland as well.

My main objection is still the Zulu thing! Damned, Ethiopian, Numides or even Libyans would be a far better representation of black africa. Why the big zero Zulus???

LoD · September 21, 2001, 08:17

Henrik:

Quote:

There had to be 100% of the votes behind a sugestion if it was to pass, and as every little country lord had a vote, not much got changed (which proved fatal in the war of 1655 whit the Swedes, although the poles managed to throw out the Swedish invador, whit the help of 5 allies and a massive peasent rebelion)...

Ah, yes, the infamous liberum veto. The eventual killer of Poland.
We had 5 allies? Wow, didn't know about that

.

Ubik:

Quote:

and what is wrong with kielbasa and pierogies?

Ah, a connaisseur of Polish cuisine I see

...

Quote:

I'd add another pre-colombian civilization in America (Mayan seem good, but what about Tolteks?)

IMHO there are enough Native American cis already. With all due respect, the name of the game is Civilization, not Extinct Tribe

.

Quote:

and maybe the Spaniards - they were heavily influental nonetheless. And maybe Mongols too - they practically had the worlds biggest empire for ages.

Those I agree with. But they are only two slots out of 16.

Quote:

Vikings (no, they didn't stop existing after 10nth century AD - where the heck do you think the Skandinavian people derive from???)

Exactly, derive from, not are.

Quote:

and many Asian civilizations

For example?

LoD