Hordes and Russia

[DevastatingTech]

True but ancestors of Finns were already Uralic so Ural-Altaic. lol :3 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Altaic,_Turkic_and_Uralic_languages_(en).png
From Siberia to Ukraine all people are mixture of Slavs-Ural-Altaics. All hail Eurasia.

 

[Novacat]

It's good to see that historical sources support the aforementioned point: Russian colonization of Siberias was nothing close to what white settlers did in Americas: the indigenous population was much smaller (by several order of magnitude), just compare the figures. Settlers with agriculture always outbreed and absorb nomadic tribes and hunters/gatherers, there have been no exceptions in the world history. However, I would take any pre-1700 sources regarding Russian colonization with a grain of salt due to the lack of proper statehood required for proper documenting of colonization effort.

Source directly states that even with small populations, the Cossacks whom were the vanguard of Russian colonization efforts did exterminate a large number of natives, especially in areas where the natives did have large populations. Overall it was nowhere near as bad as the American treatmeant of natives, but as I said above, the Soviets made up for that. The reason why the Soviets are relevant in this discussion is that arguments made earlier in this thread of there 'not being a lot of natives' stem from assumptions based on modern day populations.

 

[oblio-]

Source directly states that even with small populations, the Cossacks whom were the vanguard of Russian colonization efforts did exterminate a large number of natives, especially in areas where the natives did have large populations. Overall it was nowhere near as bad as the American treatmeant of natives, but as I said above, the Soviets made up for that. The reason why the Soviets are relevant in this discussion is that arguments made earlier in this thread of there 'not being a lot of natives' stem from assumptions based on modern day populations.

And let's not forget modern population growth, as well. This will also skew the percentages badly.

Of course, maybe there's solid evidence about the peoples of Russia in 1500/1600/1700/1800, but I doubt it. Only a handful of places (such as China) have such detailed statistics.

 

[panionios]

All the new cultures means tartar will never become an accepted culture, which sucks. Though I think I read in another thread the developer saying this nerf wasn't intentional. I guess "unintended consequences". Nevertheless, when playing Russia I always expand to its historical borders (from Poland to Korea) and by the 18th century make 150-180 gold pcm with 700-800k troops and a huge fleet, so I doubt I'll be losing lots of money due to having tartar as non-accepted. Not much of a nerf really.

 

[Novacat]

The culture balkanization affected everyone in Siberia. Having an accepted/semi-accepted pan-siberian horde is no longer possible anymore.

 

[WalrusDickenson]

the Soviets made up for that. The reason why the Soviets are relevant in this discussion

No, Soviet and even most of Imperial Russia belong to a timespan not seen in the game.

 

[WalrusDickenson]

All the new cultures means tartar will never become an accepted culture

This is what you get playing colonization in a pseudohistorical game with no population mechanics. Because if your
introduce it, historical incoherence between population growth rates and how Russia actually expanded will quickly
become too evident
I think in EU3 at least Russia had a bonus assimilating Tartar culture.

 

[Novacat]

No, Soviet and even most of Imperial Russia belong to a timespan not seen in the game.

Read what I typed, please. I said it was relevant because of people bringing up modern-day populations in the assumption that there were not a lot of people living in Siberia before the Russians colonized it.

 

[victimizer]

nevermind.

 

[Tufto]

- yay, more russophobes.

Being defensive doesn't improve your argument. For the record, I rather like Russia, but there is a difference between hating Russia and opposing a false narrative of history which states that the nomads were not organised states or did not have cities. You are a Russian nationalist, as your past posts suggest; I see no reason to discuss anything with a proponent of pseudohistory and rhetoric, so I shall leave this here.

 

[senjaru]

Those, who read russian, may be interesting in reading Vadim Nesterov's new book about Russia colonization of steppes, the text is available online in Russian http://grgame.ru/knigi/
Generally speaking, that time was rather harsh, and russians were not an example of humanity, doing generally more or less the same things, other conquerers were doing.

 

[Outrider]

- yay, more russophobes.

Or just anti-nationalist* and pointing out the disproportionate volume of nationalistic posts on the forum by slavs compared to anyone other group.

* Because they're annoying, often being aggressive while playing the martyr (like your post!).

 

[herrmarisa]

What the hell has this thread become, I'd suggest quitting this pointless discussion and talk about the improper Russian-Horde mechanics.

 

[oblio-]

What the hell has this thread become, I'd suggest quitting this pointless discussion and talk about the improper Russian-Horde mechanics.

You know, this topic was dead, you should have just ignored it and it would have stayed on page 20 or whatever it was...