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

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Fresno
I don't think the people in Sudeten would agree with that...

Most of the people who lived in Sudetenland before 1945 spoke German.

[Fresno]

True, but not any more.

[jsw363]

I would agree that Austria is another German state, but it held hegemony over the German states for a far longer period of time than Prussia did. It's weird to include Germany (the modern extension of the Prussian state) when an empire of Germanic peoples under the Hapsburgs was so much more powerful. The Hapsburg empire even included all of Spain and its territories in the Americas at one point. While Germany is certainly a key player in modern scenarios, the HRE, united under a Hapsburg monarch, played a large role in a far larger number of wars.
The Hapsburgs saved Europe from the Ottomans twice at the gates of Vienna, in 1589 and 1623.

So I would say that it's a difficult issue since there's already another Germanic civilization, but in terms of power and size the Austrian Empire beats modern Germany any day.

[Fresno]

1. I don't think you should see the Germany of today as the modern extension of Prussia. Although it's true Bismarck was Prussian and he was the one who united Germany, history hasn't stopped since that moment.
2. Even if you regard modern Germany as the Prussian Germany, it doesn't mean all Germans are Prussians. Like Oligarf said: Germans are the people, not only the nation.

[Ecthy]

Modern Germany is far from being a Prussian Germany.

Prussia is nowadays territory of Poland and Russia anyway

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well Habsburg monarchy is probably the only multicultural European state that held for quite a long time, exactly 500 years That its influence was very significant in Europe, and Habsburgs on their own were important even before 1500, but after that their power really grew.

I think they shpould be included since they did shape world history/ European culture etc... as for Germany, The only Germans in the Habsburg monarchy were Austrians, all the rest were other nations which significantly contributed to the development and strenght of the monarchy while it was on. It is only the mistreatment of the memeber nations in the 1800's and at the beginning of the 20 th century that the nations constituting the monarchy decided they don't want the King anymore. So this was an EU start/ just to centralized for many tastes. A lesson for present day EU.

[GePap]

Austrians should not be a civ because they are germans. The Germanss include the Austrians, Prussians, Bavarians, Hannoverians, Thuringians, Saxons, Hessians, and so forth. The fact is that most of the 'Civs' in this game are compilations of large groups of peoples that may have had different rulers and borders over time but always shared a common heritage.
Examples:
The French leader, Joan, was killed by the Burgundians, who were french, yet the French cvi includes them, the Normans, and so forth.
The Chinese include all the different grouops of china, from mandarin speaking Han to Cantonese speakers in the south, so forth.
The Persians not only represent those of Darius and xerxes time, but the Parthians who fought with rome and the Shahs who battled the house of Osman.
Many Aztec cities are actually the cities of those tribes, like Tlaxcala, whic formed part of the coolition that destroyed the Aztec (but they all spoke nahuatl).
The Greeks include all the city states which fought each other for so long, and even include the barbarian Macedonians (out of which came their leader, Alexander)
So forth and so on......
If we are going to add new civs, we should give priority to new ethno-linguistic groupings not included in the game as is, not include every little sub-unit of existing ethno-liguistic groupings, no matter how importantt historically they were. For these reasons, the Spanirds, Arabs, Turks, Indo-Malays, Incas, Koreans, MOngols and some sort of west african empire, like Mali, should be those in the running.

[ranskaldan]

Well said, GePap....

[Ecthy]

But that was my point in the first place...

[Fresno]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Well Habsburg monarchy is probably the only multicultural European state that held for quite a long time, exactly 500 years.

What about the Roman empire?

[Ecthy]

yes but we're talking about civilized empires

[Fresno]

So the Habsburg monarchy was more civilized as Rome?

[Makeo]

(In addition to being much more fun than the tight-assed Prussies)

Austria still exists!! Prussia is lost in Poland!!!

[the-elf]

I am with Ecthelion regarding Austria... but here are some comments:

1. Austria certainly was an independent monarchy well before the inception of Germany. Austria was part of the Hapsburg empire for hundreds of years, the other half of which was the Spanish territories. By contrast, Germany did not come into existance unil the 1870's. By 1900, however, Austrian policy was influenced to a great degree by Berlin.

2. Austria would have remained a minor power or satellite of Germany from the beginning had it not united with the Hungarian kingdom. The Hungarian territories, while larger overall, were less developed than the Austrian lands. In addition, The multiethnic makeup of Hungary brought a powerful element of instability to Austria. Conversely, Germany upon its inception was an almost completely homogenous ethnic state.

3. The majority of peoples who considered themselves Austrians also considered themselves to be ethnic Germans. Germans, on the other hand, did not consider themselves ethnic Austrians. In fact, most Germans considered Austrians to be Germans living under a semi-foreign regime.

4. Austria was under the control of the Holy Roman Empire prior to the Hapsburg period. While Prussia was also Holy Roman territory, the political power of this empire originated in the Berlin, not in Vienna.

5. The Reichsmark was legal tender in Austria-Hungary from Germany's creation in the 1870's until it was banned in 1945. The Austrian Schilling was never legal tender in Germany.

5. Austrians speak German. "Austrian" is recognized as a dialect of German.

In some future European scenario, however, the Austrians would be a fine choice to affset Germany's power in Central Europe.

[Herr David]

Geez you guys are talking about Austria and Prussia all the time, and yet no one mentions the Rhineland. Sure, we Rhinelanders didn't imprint our name in the history books, but we're a culture in our own right. No other part of Germany has a Karneval that comes close to ours. Austria had a Golden Age in the 17th century, Prussia in the 19th centiry, but, hey, here in the Rhineland we have a six-day golden age each year! Fat Thurday through Ash Wednesday... Alaaf!

(Sorry if you're not from Germany and didn't understand a word...)

[sargon2]

History of the german tribes diverged not until 1806. Before 6th Cent. to 19th Cent(=13 Cents.), there were no doubts about where that german-originally-bavarian-populated region belongs to. 1806 all, really all tribes/particular states went their own ways. 1871 they found together, as a national state but the Habsburgian conglomerate didn't want to give up it's ethnically non-german parts - for they had lost their power. But that countries stayed close friends even followed eachother in to WWI. Germany was a modern national country and Austria-Hungaria a old-fashined relativ. After WWI they had to give up their non-german parts and did want to join Germany. So after a break of 112 years they felt German, and I guess if u had asked the people they had said they were Germans of Austria. So that equals from the 6th Cent till 1918 a uninterrupted continuety. But the german Austrians weren't allowed to join by the victory powers of WWI - for they feared a more powerfull Germany. Since Hitler the Austrians don't want to be seen as German. As I emphasize my Slovacian ancestors. But u can't escape from history for Hitler was just from your Austria. And it was no ethnical problem that he was accepted as a politician in Germany. So if there had should ever be made a distinction it had should be done that days.
Mit gefangen - mit gehangen.

An independent Civ needs more than 200 years of different but similar history. Its cultur, language, ethnicity, sometimes religion, history.

Don't u remember that our countries meet annualy to put forward standart German language. And besides Austria is the strongest supporter of the German demand that our common German gets 3. language of burocracy in EU.

[Toasty]

Let me jump right in...

I think that the Austro-Hungarians might be deserving as a civ, as it's been said, Austria would have never found its influence without the landmass of Hungary. However, the Austrians on their own, are rather not. If you've ever seen a map that divides up what was the Hungarian Kingdom and the Austrian Empire in Austria-Hungary, Austria only controlled what is today Austria, Istria, The Dalmatian coast and Czechoslovakia. The rest was the Hungarian sector.

I guess you can say that AUSTRIANS are Germans, but the Austro-Hungarian culture more or less mixed and along the Danube you can see the variations on German and Hungarian culture that have combined.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you put Austria and Hungary together as one civ then they are definitely more deserving of 'civdom' than Prussia and in general, but hey, this is just my opinion.

Interesting talk though. Good points all around!

[sargon2]

Nobody wanted Prussia, to get an own Civ. Only if Austria got one.
U r right about that important role of the Hungarians in the Habsburgian Empire. But chief still were the german Austrians. Hungarians were juniorpatners. Therefor they were also made responsable of WWI. That is why major hungarian parts are now in Slovacia, Romania and Serbia. For they paid.

[GePap]

To restate what i said earlier- Germany (regardless of the leader choice) represent all german speakers- which is why cities like hamburg, munich, Frankfurt are built by the Germans, as opposed to the civ being limited to Prussian cities.

If austria gets a civ, then by that logic, the Dutch, belgians, Serbs, Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Swiss, Bulgarians, Romanians, Scotts, Welsh, Basque, Catalan, Normans, Kievians, and every other independent political unit in European history deserves one - who may civs would that be?

Lets remember that hapburg power until the 18th century was based on thier control of the Holy Roman Empire since they always mnuevered their way to power- but the hapsburgs themselves were simply the Dukes of Austria until 1804 when Francis made Austria not a duchy but inflated it to empire, out of the blue. And the whole Austro-Hungarian bit did not come into effect until 1867, and the hapsburgs had control of hungary only after the conquests by Eugene after the unsuccessful siege of Vienna in 1683. Before that, any connections between the hapsburgs and Hungary were by marriages arranged mainly by maximillian, which all fell apart at Mohacs with the death of the Hungarian King(whose name i forget).

[Thrawn05]

Granted I get my German Blood from my great great grandmother, who came from Austria.

If you don't want to consider Austria as it's own country, then think of it as either part of the German empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Either one works for me.

[Big Fish]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
put in Poles

I have thought about putting in Poles and they would have 2 special units 'Mounted Infintry' and in the modern era 'Submarene With Screen Door'

[Dom Pedro II]

Austria should not be a civilization for several reasons.

First, I saw some people who were sort of misusing the word "nation"... a nation does not have to be a country. It merely means a group of people with similar ethnicity, culture, language, etc. So in that case, Austria is German in terms of nationality. As was stated earlier, were it not for political troubles, Austria would have been part of the unified Germany. Of course, THIS Austria was only the very tiny German Austria. The Austrian Empire on the other hand was a lot more than just Germans... the Austrians were "fortunate" enough to inherit the Balkans with all of its Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, Kosovars, Albanians, Hungarians, so on and so forth and even Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks. Now, the only reason that the Austrian Empire included all of these countries was because good old Charles V who ruled just about all of known creation in his day cut up Europe amongst his Hapsburg heirs. His brother got the Holy Roman Empire... big whoop. If you're going to put Austria as a civilization, you might as well throw in the Holy Roman Empire too. They are merely the ILLUSION of countries. The Austrian Empire was not a nation but rather the landholdings of the last of the Hapsburgs at the time of its collapse in 1918. The main reason being that it was really trying to hold together MANY nations that are much better suited to being civilizations in Civ 3.

[siredgar]

I can't believe this thread is still going on... and on... and on...