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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Wernazuma III]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!