Why Cossacks Should Not Represent Catherine and Russia in Civilization VII: A Historical Misstep

[Dragon_22_#не москаль]

Defining the Cossacks as a special unit for Catherine and Russia in Civilization VII is historically inaccurate because Catherine the Great was a direct enemy of the Cossacks and actively destroyed their autonomy and way of life.

On June 15, 1775, Catherine issued an order that led to the destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich, the stronghold of Cossack independence, despite their contributions to Russia’s victory in the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774). On August 14, 1775, Catherine issued a manifesto justifying this act, falsely portraying the Cossacks as a "den of drunkards and troublemakers" who "lived in ignorance and hindered the empire's trade and cultural ties with neighbors." The manifesto ignored the role of the Cossacks, who significantly aided the Russian Empire during the Russo-Turkish War, instead covering up how their efforts contributed to victory.

After destroying the Sich, Catherine abolished Cossack lands, dissolved their democratic governance, and imposed serfdom on many former Cossacks, effectively erasing their identity as a distinct military and cultural force. The Don Cossacks, who had previously enjoyed a degree of autonomy, also faced repression under Catherine's rule. Many were forcibly relocated to the Kuban region in 1792, a strategic move to weaken their independence by dispersing them and placing them under stricter imperial control. After many Cossacks were exiled to Siberia, where they endured harsh conditions and high mortality rates, further suppressing their cultural identity.

Depicting the Cossacks as a special unit under Catherine in Civilization VII not only misrepresents history but also undermines their true legacy—Zaporozhian Sich as symbols of Ukrainian autonomy and Don Cossacks as symbols of broader autonomy and resistance to imperial domination.

[Motgenror]

> despite their contributions to Russia’s victory in the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774)

You said it yourself - they were part of the fighting force. So it makes sense to have that military unit. Not everything should be about modern politics.

[Dragon_22_#не москаль]

Originally posted by Motgenror:

> despite their contributions to Russia’s victory in the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774)

You said it yourself - they were part of the fighting force. So it makes sense to have that military unit. Not everything should be about modern politics.

Cossacks were not under her direct command and often operated autonomously or under temporary alliances with the Russian Empire.

During the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774), the Zaporozhian Cossacks joined the conflict to defend their own interests, particularly against the Ottoman Empire, which posed a direct threat to their territory. Their participation was not out of loyalty to Catherine but rather a strategic decision to align with the Russian forces temporarily. Cossack units operated under their own leaders, such as atamans, and were not integrated into Catherine’s centralized military structure.

Despite their significant contributions to Russia's victory, Catherine rewarded their efforts with betrayal. Following the war, she issued an order to destroy the Zaporozhian Sich on June 15, 1775, eliminating their autonomy and cultural stronghold.

This betrayal underscores why the Cossacks should not represent Catherine in the game.

Assigning the Cossacks to Catherine misrepresents her historical role. A better choice for her unique unit would be

1. Imperial Guard
The Imperial Guard symbolizes the modernization of military forces under Catherine, influenced by European tactics and discipline. This unit could represent Catherine’s focus on creating a centralized, professional army.
Gameplay Abilities: Stronger combat strength and a bonus in defending cities or against larger forces, emphasizing Catherine’s role in solidifying and protecting the empire.

2. Potemkin Brigades
Catherine’s naval reforms were pivotal, particularly in the Black Sea region, where the fleet played a crucial role in conflicts with the Ottoman Empire. The Potemkin Brigades honor the strategic contributions of Grigory Potemkin, a key advisor.

So, Motgenror, how can we claim the Cossacks represent Catherine when they were autonomous, acted under their own leadership, and were never her loyal subordinates in a unified chain of command—nor did she treat them as such after the war? By that same logic, we might as well include Poland’s famed Winged Hussars under the Russian Empire, which is obviously absurd and historically inaccurate.

[Dragon_22_#не москаль]

Here are similar examples of conflicts where forces united against a common foe but were never the same force, particularly around the same historical period:

1. The Russo-Polish Alliance Against the Ottoman Empire (1686–1699)
Context: Poland-Lithuania and Russia temporarily allied during the Holy League to counter Ottoman expansion.
Why Similar: Despite aligning against the Ottomans, the two nations remained distrustful of each other, pursuing separate military campaigns and goals. Their historical rivalry prevented any deeper integration.

2. The War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714)
Context: Britain, Austria, and the Dutch Republic allied against France and Spain to prevent a Bourbon monopoly on European power.
Why Similar: The allies shared a common enemy but retained independent command structures, with differing motivations (e.g., Britain focused on trade routes, Austria on territorial claims). Their cooperation was temporary and limited to shared objectives.

3. The Franco-American Alliance in the American Revolutionary War (1778–1783)
Context: France supported American revolutionaries against Britain.
Why Similar: While allies, France and the American colonies had divergent objectives—France sought to weaken Britain, while Americans sought independence. French forces remained under French command, emphasizing the pragmatic and temporary nature of their alliance.

These examples illustrate that alliances of convenience, do not equate to unification into a single structure. Similarly, the temporary cooperation between the Cossacks and Russia during the Russo-Turkish War was strategic and autonomous, and it’s illogical to portray them as a unit under Catherine’s command.

[PinkPanther]

Originally posted by Dragon_22_#не ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥:

Defining the Cossacks as a special unit for Catherine and Russia in Civilization VII is historically inaccurate because Catherine the Great was a direct enemy of the Cossacks and actively destroyed their autonomy and way of life.

On June 15, 1775, Catherine issued an order that led to the destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich, the stronghold of Cossack independence, despite their contributions to Russia’s victory in the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774). On August 14, 1775, Catherine issued a manifesto justifying this act, falsely portraying the Cossacks as a "den of drunkards and troublemakers" who "lived in ignorance and hindered the empire's trade and cultural ties with neighbors." The manifesto ignored the role of the Cossacks, who significantly aided the Russian Empire during the Russo-Turkish War, instead covering up how their efforts contributed to victory.

After destroying the Sich, Catherine abolished Cossack lands, dissolved their democratic governance, and imposed serfdom on many former Cossacks, effectively erasing their identity as a distinct military and cultural force. Depicting the Cossacks as a special unit under Catherine in Civilization VII not only misrepresents history but also undermines their true legacy as symbols of Ukrainian autonomy and resistance to imperial domination.

Don't worry, maybe they also won't have Austria like in CIV 6. Which was also historically inaccurate and straight stupid. :D

[Dragon_22_#не москаль]

Originally posted by PinkPanther:

I’m also hoping we get to see Austria with Kaiserschützen - Tiroler Landesschützen who basically turned hiking into an art of dropping rocks on unwelcome invaders. I’d love to try that unit! So maybe Firaxis better to allow players create CIV if it is not present instead of allowing to mix leaders?

[plaguepenguin]

If Firaxis has to right every historical wrong before it publishes a game, they'll never get any out the door. Worse, any choices they make towards providing any one group the justice of what that group considers an accurate portrayal, are going to be seen by 5 or 6 other groups as gross injustice.

It's a game. It makes some very superficial contact with some aspects of some groups' identities, but it doesn't pretend to historical accuracy or fidelity. Every single civ it portrays is amazingly stereotyped. That's the point in the game, put some identification onto the game's elements that is so simple that it lets the players grasp intuitively what they're dealing with. Of course simplicity is amazingly ahistorical, flattens everything into a stereotype, but simple identities are the stock in trade of a game,

Within the game, Cossacks tell you your're dealing with Russia! Of course. Easy reminder, keeps you oriented -- but oriented to the game universe only, however much it puts you at odds with the real history of all those involved.

[Lëgënd]

As penguin said, it's just a game, and Firaxis has never tried being "historically accurate", they only provide historical people/places/nations etc in their games to allow the players to build an "alternate history" per se. It's the same as every other thread asking why their leader/nation wasn't included, you can't win. Even if you include said leader/nation, it may not be 100% accurate which people still complain about, it's a catch 22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Dragon_22_#не москаль]

Originally posted by Lëgënd:

It's the same as every other thread asking why their leader/nation wasn't included, you can't win.

I’m not asking for the Cossacks to become their own civ. I’m saying they shouldn’t be Catherine’s special unit because they were an autonomous group with their own leadership, land, and culture, not an officially integrated part of the Russian imperial army. A special unit should be something that unquestionably served under that nation’s command structure—like the P-51 Mustang in the U.S. Army Air Forces. By contrast, the Cossacks maintained their independence and even faced suppression by Catherine after the war, so it’s misleading to treat them as her iconic ‘loyal’ troops. That’s a key difference between including them as a distinct civ and misrepresenting them under Catherine’s banner

[Dragon_22_#не москаль]

Originally posted by plaguepenguin:

It’s a false dilemma to suggest that either Firaxis must “right every historical wrong” or abandon historical nuance entirely. While perfect accuracy is unachievable in any game, basic respect for a group’s identity and historical context is both possible and enriching. Civilization’s past scenarios (like “Scramble for Africa”) demonstrate that Firaxis can balance gameplay with thoughtful historical touches—no one’s demanding absolute perfection. Depicting a unique unit as belonging to a ruler who actually suppressed that group is more than a harmless stereotype—it actively distorts real history in a way that’s harmful to collective memory. Ultimately, acknowledging these nuances doesn’t shackle creative freedom; it enhances player engagement and creates more respectful, credible storytelling.

[Monkey218]

Friend, Harriet Tubman is a leader for the United States. The game is not in anyway bound to historical accuracy. Catherine is a leader, and Cossacks were a Russian thing at one point so thus you get Catherine with Cossacks.

[Dragon_22_#не москаль]

Originally posted by Monkey218:

Friend, Harriet Tubman is a leader for the United States. The game is not in anyway bound to historical accuracy. Catherine is a leader, and Cossacks were a Russian thing at one point so thus you get Catherine with Cossacks.

Harriet Tubman was born in the United States and she is part U.S. history. The Cossacks, on the other hand, were not part Russian society or military structure—they were autonomous groups with their own leadership and traditions, often resisting imperial control. While they allied with Russia temporarily during wars like the Russo-Turkish War, they were never fully integrated into Russian society or military structure.

[Dragon_22_#не москаль]

Originally posted by Monkey218:

Harriet Tubman is inherently tied to U.S. history, while the Cossacks were autonomous groups that resisted Russian control and were never truly part of it, making them fundamentally different from your comparison.

[plaguepenguin]

Originally posted by Dragon_22_#не ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥:

Originally posted by plaguepenguin:

It’s a false dilemma to suggest that either Firaxis must “right every historical wrong” or abandon historical nuance entirely. While perfect accuracy is unachievable in any game, basic respect for a group’s identity and historical context is both possible and enriching. Civilization’s past scenarios (like “Scramble for Africa”) demonstrate that Firaxis can balance gameplay with thoughtful historical touches—no one’s demanding absolute perfection. Depicting a unique unit as belonging to a ruler who actually suppressed that group is more than a harmless stereotype—it actively distorts real history in a way that’s harmful to collective memory. Ultimately, acknowledging these nuances doesn’t shackle creative freedom; it enhances player engagement and creates more respectful, credible storytelling.

My point is that they don't ever, not with any individual or group whose name they use that is ripped from history, get anywhere near the nuance level. The best they get is very simplistic stereotyping. I'm happy if they at least avoid malicious stereotypes, of the sort that Catherine employs in that ukaz you cite.

How could they get anywhere near nuance? They've got Russia in the game as a Modern civ, so approximately 1750-1955. Catherine was only tsarina for a fraction of that time, but she has to stand in for Russian govt policy as a whole during over two centuries. If she oppressed some Cossacks, sure, that creates a conflict between game and history if she is the leader in age in which Cossacks are a Russian unique unit. But, she is also the leader of Russia during a time in which the tsarist regime was overthrown and Russia became the SU. Which is more of a conflict with real history, Catherine's Russia having Cossacks as its powerful unique unit, or Catherine the Communist singing the Intenatilonale as she leads the workers of the world in throwing off their chains?

It's a game, not reality. Reality is endlessly complex, but even a game as complex as this one has to leave whatever connection it has to reality at a very superficial level. That level shortchanged the real history of Catherine's treatment of on group of Cossacks, but it does so much worse, constantly, everywhere, that this is a very venial sin in comparison that you are condemning.

As an historical aside, I was born and raised in New Orleans, and what Catherine said maliciously about the Cossacks, that they were supposedly a "den of drunkards and troublemakers" who "lived in ignorance and hindered the empire's trade and cultural ties with neighbors.", hits a bit close to home. I'll let it pass.

[Dragon_22_#не москаль]

Originally posted by plaguepenguin:

They've got Russia in the game as a Modern civ, so approximately 1750-1955. Catherine was only tsarina for a fraction of that time

No, Catherine (1762–1796) ruled only a specific 34-year period, while the 1750–1955 timeframe spans both the Tsarist era and the Soviet Union—two fundamentally different systems that cannot be lumped together as a "modern civ." The Cossacks were never part of Russian authority under her reign. They retained their own leadership and autonomy, often resisting Russian control, culminating in Catherine issuing orders to dismantle their independence, as mentioned above.

A comparable misstep would be portraying Louisiana Creoles as British loyalists simply because they navigated shifting colonial powers. The Creoles preserved their distinct culture and allegiance to France or Spain, just as the Cossacks fought to maintain their autonomy. Associating Catherine with the Cossacks not only ignores nuance but outright distorts history by assigning her leadership over a group she actively suppressed.

[Sagrim-Ur]

Originally posted by Dragon_22_#не ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥:

Harriet Tubman is inherently tied to U.S. history, while the Cossacks were autonomous groups that resisted Russian control and were never truly part of it, making them fundamentally different from your comparison.

Cossacks are inherently tied to Russian history, they are Russian people, who lived on Russian lands and fought numerous wars on Russia's side. Saying they were never truly part of Russia is the same as saying, for example, that Odessa was never part of Russia - patently false