Charles de Gaulle in BTS! [Archive] - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

UnspokenRequest

Apr 16, 2007, 10:43 AM

Du Galle wasn't really considered a great leader either, was he?

De Gaulle was a great political and military leader. There's no doubt about it. Some historians even place him next to Churchill. The reason he is not in CivIV is probably related to the fact that he's not that well known in the Anglo-saxon world. Still the guy did a lot, both as a military officer and as a head of state.

Here's what I remember from an history course I took a few years ago:
- Prior to the WW2, it seems he warned some of his superiors (who based their strategies and tactics on WW1), saying that the "art" of war had changed and that France's military should adapt its strategies to the new technologies. It seems his warnings fell into deaf hears.
- During the occupation by Nazi Germany, he rallied most of France's colonies, delt with the other Allies and helped the resistance in France. Many consider his action during WW2 as heroic. He was the leader France rallied to when the country was on its knees.
- After the war, he was able to maintain France's relevance as a power on the world stage, even though the country had just been crushed by the Nazis.
- He's the founder of the Fifth Republic, which is France's actual political regime. Even though it's far from perfect, many would say it is the most successful regime since the French Revolution of 1789.
- He was president during a period of prosperous economic, cultural and intellectual expansion for France (One could easily see it as a Golden Age).
- He managed to give independance to France's colonies (Politically this was very hard to do), while keeping France's sphere of influence in these regions. These sphere of influence still exist today. They are not as strong, though.

Actually, many would argue that he did much more for France than Louis XIV ever did.

I'm not French, Btw. I'm Canadian.

rabidveggie

Apr 17, 2007, 10:20 AM

This is really the first time I've ever heard of him and I know quite a bit about WWII. Of course I had heard of free France and the French resistance, but I can't see how he can get in over William Lyon Mackenzie King who didn't lead a nation that despite having an equal army to Germany still lost in a week. While your at it why not put in the Polish leader at least they fought on even when they saw that the war was lost. Charles was also in power when France became a nuclear power was he not? France does not deserve a spot on the world stage with their spotty military record and abysmal peace keeping abilities. As for Hitler not getting a spot because he led his nation into ruin is bs as well because what the hell did you think Napoleon did? Hitler won't get in because a lot of people would find his inclusion into the game offensive. Imagine Hitler founding Judaism anyways. :crazyeye:

Lord Olleus

Apr 17, 2007, 11:13 AM

This is really the first time I've ever heard of him and I know quite a bit about WWII.

I'm sorry, but you obviously don't know much about WW2. To add to what UnspokenRequest said he also managed to get France a share of Berlin and a seat on the UN permanant security council, which is pretty good for a country which was invaded. Also, if it wasn't for his actions in rallying the African colonies, its very likely that the British would have lost the Suez canal.

But more importantly, what he did was lead France after WW2, recovered from the war and make it a stable country (well, until may 68).

Zebra 9

Apr 17, 2007, 11:43 AM

He might just be in the game. I play SMRR and there is no animation/image of him in there that looks like that (yes the head is the same, the background no).

shmily_dana

Apr 17, 2007, 04:46 PM

Maybe it is Rene from 'allo 'allo...

The Lance

Apr 18, 2007, 11:18 AM

Du Galle wasn't really considered a great leader either, was he?

Considering he was begged to become the French President, he wrote the current French Constitution, has a system of Governance named after him (Gaullist), prevented a near civil war, rebuilt a fractured France, and governed for 11 years by winning (I believe) 3 successive elections before stepping down a great. I would consider him a pretty good leader, yea.

Alsark

Apr 18, 2007, 11:36 AM

He might just be in the game. I play SMRR and there is no animation/image of him in there that looks like that (yes the head is the same, the background no).

The background is part of "Sid Meier's Railroads!" and I can say that without even once having played the game in my life. A picture is worth a thousand words:

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/281/reviews/932338_20061009_screen028.jpg

I realize that that isn't de Gaulle, but take note that the background is the exact same down to even the picture frames on the table. Zebra mentioned that the head is the same, but not the background, so they must have just taken the head and put it onto that background. Therefore, both the face and background are part of "Sid Meier's Railroads!".

He would definitely be a good leader to add, but given that Firaxis usually sticks to tradition (that is, following their own former games), I'd say that we're much more likely to see Joan d'Arc over de Gaulle.

UnspokenRequest

Apr 18, 2007, 01:44 PM

This is really the first time I've ever heard of him and I know quite a bit about WWII.
This is almost laughable. If you don't know Charles de Gaule. You can't claim to know "quite a bit" about WW2. Read some history.

Of course I had heard of free France and the French resistance, but I can't see how he can get in over William Lyon Mackenzie King who didn't lead a nation that despite having an equal army to Germany still lost in a week. While your at it why not put in the Polish leader at least they fought on even when they saw that the war was lost. Charles was also in power when France became a nuclear power was he not?
De Gaule was Colonel, and then a Brigadier General (just a minor general) during WW2. Not head of State!!! The tank units he controled won some of the only early French victory of WW2. The fact that France did very poorly during this war is not his fault. He actually tried to prevent it by warning his superiors and advocating for new strategies.

Here's what he did during WW2 that shows merit: with very little prestige at the time, he flew to England on the day Petain bowed down to the Nazis, he met with Churchill, he sent radio messages on the BBC refusing capitulation and calling for resistance. He organised France's armies in the colony. Every Frenchmen against Germany rallied to him. He negotiated harshly with Churchill and Roosevelt so that France's military forces kept their independance during the rest of the war (Especially after D-Day). He secured France's territorial and colonial integrity and independance even though Roosevelt was reluctant to leave the post-war administration of France solely in Frenchmen's hand.
Go read some history before coming here and talking about what you don't know. At the very least, go read his story on Wikipedia. It should be enough to convince you of his importance as a leader on the world stage. At the time, he was really BIG.

BTW, I'm Canadian and I can honestly say that Mackenzie King is a midget compared to De Gaule.

France does not deserve a spot on the world stage with their spotty military record and abysmal peace keeping abilities.
That is typical anti-french sentiment. France was one of the few nuclear powers of the Cold War. Clearly one of USA most important ally next to Great Britain. It had (and still has to some extent) a large sphere of influence in Africa. From the 1960s (starting during De Gaule's years btw) until the 1990s, France had a higher GDP (per capita and as a whole) than Great Britain... True, France after WW2 was not a superpower, but it was still a Great power.

BTW, would you care to elaborate on "military record and abysmal peace keeping abilities"? If you take out WW2, France's overall historical military record is not that bad. Napoleon anyone? France did quite well in WW1 too.

NYHunter

Apr 18, 2007, 04:10 PM

I would very much love De Gaulle in CIV IV.

mice

Apr 18, 2007, 04:41 PM

It's Charles de Gaulle but he is appearing in Railroads, and Bismark is in there too.

They have leaders but we dont really feel their personalities. they all do the same thing in the same way; build infrastructure and buy stock.

It's a reminder that Civ is the best game out there for complexity of the AI.

Alsark

Apr 18, 2007, 06:41 PM

BTW, would you care to elaborate on "military record and abysmal peace keeping abilities"? If you take out WW2, France's overall historical military record is not that bad. Napoleon anyone? France did quite well in WW1 too.

I don't know anything about their peace-keeping abilities, but perhaps I can point out some military bits. Charles Martel / Charlemagne / Charles the Hammer doesn't count, because even though his was Frankish (which is pretty much the tribe that evolved into France), he was not officially fighting for the name of France. The Normans also cannot count as France, because, again, they weren't actually fighting in the name of France. In the lesser-known wars of the Quadruple Alliance, the Polish Succession, and the Austrian Succession, the French did win, but their gain from these wars were minimal. Prior to this, Louis XIV led perhaps one of the most successful French militaries, seeing victories in the War of Devolution, the Franco-Dutch War, the War of the Reunions, and the Nine Years War. I believe (as in not certain) that the War of the Spanish Succession (AKA Queen Anne's War) and the War of the Grand Alliance led to French defeats, but the French didn't lose much.

The Seven Years War ended up as quite the disaster, as France was forced to either keep New France, it's territory in America, or some Caribbean Isles. It ultimately chose the Caribbean Isles for the spices and other resources, but imagine how different America could have been if France still occupied it, or even held onto it much longer? Also, France greatly helped America during the American Revolution, so that can certainly count as a victory for them.

As for the French Revolution - of course they won that, because they were fighting the French. The Napoleonic Wars followed, and although Napoleon led some very successful battles, he ultimately lost the war. Embarrassingly, the French also lost against the Mexicans, which is the date that the Mexicans have come to call "Cinco de Mayo," a day which most Americans mistake as Mexico's Independence Day.

Now to get into the more modern times... I really don't think that I need to explain World War I and World War II. France ended up losing both the Algerian War of Independence and the First Indochina War (AKA the Franco-Vietnamese War). The French withrew from Vietnam in the Second Indochina War, also known simply as the Vietnam War, so that counts as a loss, too.

Really, France's record isn't as bad as people make it sound, particularly during Louis XIV's reign. If we're going for a pure record loss, I think Carthage wins. Correct me if I'm wrong...

UnspokenRequest

Apr 18, 2007, 08:10 PM

I've got a major in modern history. I'm finishing a master in International relation history.

Some of the historical events you cite lack lots of context and don't prove anything. They don't take into account the size of opposing force, the political context and economical context.
I don't care to elaborate on all of them as it would be long and tedious.

Let me just cite of few examples.
1) Napoleon. Yes, he lost, but he is still a military genious and France's army was still the best of its time. Napoleon was not a good politician and the reason he lost is mainly because he managed to put most of Europe against him. + He made the mistake of going after Russia. Nothing about this changes the fact that France's armies were the best of this particular historical period. He lost due to political and economic reasons. On a strictly military point of view, France was ahead of everyone else. Its ennemies (which was virtually every major power in Europe) had to adapt to France's military innovations.

2) "As for the French Revolution - of course they won that, because they were fighting the French."
That's false. There were revolutionary war against Europe's monarchies. France won.
Here's from wiki: "The French Revolutionary Wars were a series of major conflicts, from 1792 until 1802, fought between the French Revolutionary government and several European states. They are usually divided between the First Coalition (1792–1797) and the Second Coalition (1798–1801), although France was also at war with Great Britain continuously from 1793 to 1802.

Marked by French revolutionary fervour and military innovations, the campaigns saw the French Revolutionary Armies defeat a number of opposing coalitions and expand French control to the Low Countries, Italy, and the Rhineland. The wars were of titanic proportions, mainly due to the application of modern mass conscription."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Wars

BTW, Napoleon starts to lead France in 1799... These wars start in 1792...

3) "The Normans also cannot count as France, because, again, they weren't actually fighting in the name of France."
I would tend to agree with you. But you have to know that this is really debatable. There were many French in William's army. The Normans had been "frenchified" and the Normans were vassals to the king of France...

What about the 30 years war (1618-1648)? A clear French victory. It established France as the dominant power of the mid and late 17th century.

The 100 years war is also a French win. England lost and if England had not been an Island. It would have been much worse for them.

In the end, the point I'm trying to make is that lots of Anglos (Americans, Canadians and British) think France has always been bad militarily. It is based mostly on WW2. All I'm saying is that they were not as bad as many would like to make us believe.
France fought the rest of Europe all by herself more than any other nation in Europe. Sometimes she won, sometimes she lost.
Also, I've often heard Anglos brag about Britain's historical military record. They never take into account the fact that Britain is an island. Defensively it always had the best position in Europe. Its country has rarely been devasted as almost every war were fought on the continent.

Alsark

Apr 18, 2007, 08:32 PM

Yeah, my post was more of a general overview rather than something to go into a whole lot of detail. I'm not sure how I missed the Hundred Years War, since I was even thinking about it while I was making the post - so my apologies there. As for the Thirty Years War, I had simply forgotten about that one entirely, but yeah, that's another win for them.

Again, as stated in my original post, the French weren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be. Nobody can deny that they have won some very major battles, as well as some wars. Heck, the United States probably wouldn't even have its independence if it wasn't for the aid of the French.

So I didn't mean to downplay how well the French performed, but rather, was just stating whether the French won or lost a certain war. There is an extreme side to winning or losing, but unless it's a draw you've either won or lost, regardless of the achievements during that timeframe. Going back to what was said way earlier, and putting things a bit more on topic, France did help out significantly in World War I. With their aid, Germany was forced to fight a two front war. Also, according to Wikipedia, France had some sort of agreement with Italy that ultimately dragged Italy from being allied with Germany to allying with the Triple Entente (sorry if that is spelled incorrectly). Although as far as I know, Italy didn't contribute a whole lot to the war, but it is still one less nation we had to worry about - if that Wikipedia entry is true (and if I read it correctly). So, while ultimately a French loss due to the hasty invasion, the French did help out quite a bit.

My apologies for messing up with the French Revolution bit. I should have run a Wikipedia check on it, first, but I was always just under the [false] impression that it was simply the burgeoisse (I know that is spelled wrong) against the aristocrats, as seen in "A Tale of Two Cities". At least, that is the portion that is given the most importance, which is understandable, but as a result most people probably don't know that the French Revolution was more than that - I didn't. So thank you for correcting me.

rabidveggie

Apr 19, 2007, 08:14 AM

Winning the odd battle here and there does not substitute any sort of victory. I don't care that Napoleon beat MOST of Europe when Napoleon lost in Russia. I would be the same thing to say Hitler was a military genius up to the point he declared war on Russia. They've attempted to hold over sea's colonies numerous times which is no different from Britain except that Britain did it better. In WWI France achieved few victories on the line and in WWII they quickly surrendered. The reason I never heard of Charles de Gaulle is that the victors of a war write the history books and France was a loser despite gaining a little of Berlin. The resistance was not a substantial reason for a final ally victory nor were the French forces that later rejoined the war. The Suez crisis was just embarrassing, good job Charles De Gaulle you and Britain almost caused a nuclear war. :nuke: During the Quebec referendum in 1995 on the separation of Quebec from Canada the French President encouraged French Canadians to vote to separate from the country ranked highest in living standards. France should not have the same representation in Civ IV as England, Russia, or even America.

LAnkou

Apr 19, 2007, 08:39 AM

France should not have the same representation in Civ IV as England, Russia, or even America.

that's right, France truly deserve a much greater representation, but french people are modest people and we know that if France were represented in the game as they deserves, well, they would have 80% of the leaders, UU, UB and all Great People would be french persons...

Besides that, you have to notice that if wonders are not all in France, it's because French people let other civ/nation build it so they understand how much better french wonders are...([Irony off] The statue of liberty is French :D [irony back on])

Remember that if Civ exist, it's because the Gene pools of Sid Meier has in a very lucky way for him, gathered some french gene that he took from his great great mother (mother side) and his great great great mother (father side). French genius needs the two allela to have some effect...

But Sid Meier, in all his frenchness, decides that it would be unfair to put so much pressure on other civ.

We, french people, don't like to make other people feel less fantastic than we are...especially german and american people, we let them come to visit France twice for a touristic tour so they can be inspired by what they see, but they let such a mess behind them that we think we won't let that happend again unless they learn proper manner...

You can't know how it is hard to be french and having to act as a "normal" people, I mean, that's really hard to hide your greatness...

UnspokenRequest

Apr 19, 2007, 09:22 AM

"The Suez crisis was just embarrassing, good job Charles De Gaulle you and Britain almost caused a nuclear war."
You're ignorant. Yet, you keep talking about things you don't know.
De Gaulle was not in power during the Suez Crisis!!!!! Ignorance leads to stupid remarks... Again, read and learn before talking.

"In WWI France achieved few victories on the line"
Verdun is one of the most important victory on the line. Just as important as the Somme. Ignorance!

"despite gaining a little of Berlin"
France did more than that. Once France was partly liberated, it participated in many ally operations, especially during the conquest of Germany. Ignorance!

"Winning the odd battle here and there does not substitute any sort of victory."
100 years war? Odd battles here and there? I don't think so. Ignorance.

"France was a loser"
Actually, most historians would disagree with you. In the diplomatic circles at the end of the war, France was considered one of the victors. For instance, it participated in the Nuremberg trials as one of the 4 victors.
This is due in part to Charles De Gaulle diplomatic and military actions during and after the war that helped the people of the time consider that France was a winner. In the negociation leading to the armistice, France is always on the side of the winners.
BTW, De Gaulle did much more than organize the resistance. He levied troop in France's colonies (Half of the african continents).

"France should not have the same representation in Civ IV as England, Russia, or even America."
You obviously have no idea of France's contribution to the world. The Enlightment? Diderot? Voltaire? Rousseau? The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? Molière? Versailles? René Descartes, considered "founder of modern mathematics" AND "founder of modern philosophy"?

Face it, you're anti-french, just the way some other people are anti-semitic. Furthermore, you're desperatly ignorant about history.

Alsark

Apr 19, 2007, 09:41 AM

"France should not have the same representation in Civ IV as England, Russia, or even America."
You obviously have no idea of France's contribution to the world. The Enlightment? Diderot? Voltaire? Rousseau? The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? Molière? Versailles? René Descartes, considered "founder of modern mathematics" AND "founder of modern philosophy"?

Agreed. France has been far more influential to the overall world's development than the United States has. France has probably contributed a lot more to the world than a good deal of civilizations in the game. So many people bash France's military, so I could see how you have that idea, but I cannot at all see how you can bash France's culture. Without France, the United States wouldn't exist (I obviously can't say this as a definite, but they helped out America in the Revolution), so you have to at least give them that much.

Also keep in mind that William I of England was only a Duke of Normandy before invading England and taking it over. Normandy, as you know, was basically French in culture. As a result, this culture was absorbed by the English and England ultimately owes it current culture to the French. William I of England also improved several laws, founded feudalism in England, and built several structures, such as "Her Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress The Tower of London", or more commonly called simply "The Tower of London".

You mentioned that France is in no way an equal to England, America, or Russia, and yet, ironically, two of those countries that you mentioned owe what they are today to the French.

LAnkou

Apr 19, 2007, 09:50 AM

Just look at french influence on Russia and that's where you acknowledge that what i said ironically was finally true. :lol:

rabidveggie

Apr 19, 2007, 10:00 AM

"You're ignorant. Yet, you keep talking about things you don't know.
De Gaulle was not in power during the Suez Crisis!!!!! Ignorance leads to stupid remarks... Again, read and learn before talking."

Oh crap I screwed up the dates with Charles De Gaulle when he was in power. The Suez crisis happened something like two years before he came to power my bad you were right Unspokenrequest.

"Verdun is one of the most important victory on the line. Just as important as the Somme. Ignorance!"

The battle of the Somme was a needless slaughter just like Verdun. I refuse to call that a victory more a stalemate.

"France did more than that. Once France was partly liberated, it participated in many ally operations, especially during the conquest of Germany. Ignorance!"

But France never played a lead role in those operation, countries like Canada, Australia, and India contributed more then the supposed super power France did.

"100 years war? Odd battles here and there? I don't think so. Ignorance."

Wow you mean how they merely held on to their land after squandering their early advantage? How the only general capable of defending France was a peasant girl? Good point how could I have not chalked the outcome of that war to a victory for France?

"Actually, most historians would disagree with you. In the diplomatic circles at the end of the war, France was considered one of the victors. For instance, it participated in the Nuremberg trials as one of the 4 victors.
This is due in part to Charles De Gaulle diplomatic and military actions during and after the war that helped the people of the time consider that France was a winner. In the negotiation leading to the armistice, France is always on the side of the winners.
BTW, De Gaulle did much more than organize the resistance. He levied troop in France's colonies (Half of the african continents)."

Really? I'm pretty sure that when you surrender you lose, but I guess thats just me. Sure they reentered the war, but they still surrendered without a fight and I find that fact a little bit of a stain on their contribution to the war. Luck allowed British and French troops to evacuate at Dunkirk and Churchill having a spine prevented a very different history. (I'm not British by the way I'm Canadian)

"You obviously have no idea of France's contribution to the world. The Enlightment? Diderot? Voltaire? Rousseau? The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? Molière? Versailles? René Descartes, considered "founder of modern mathematics" AND "founder of modern philosophy"?"

Did I ever say that France did not contribute to engineering, and Science? No I pointed out military and political mistakes. If we are just adding civs based on great people and buildings then goodbye Mongols, Zulu, Carthage, and the Celts. While your at it why not add another Roman leader? Or Greek seeing as they only have one despite all their accomplishments. We are looking at leaders not The Statue of Liberty which I did indeed know was a gift from France.

I am not anti French and if I am I've backed up why. You are reaching to justify Charles and I say their are better leaders then him not added yet. If we just look at a civs cultural victories then why not add Venice? Face it your pro France and thus you over exaggerate accomplishments while I under exaggerate it. They never were the top dog in history, they always played second fiddle to Spain, Britain, and now America.

calgacus

Apr 19, 2007, 10:16 AM

I've g
3) "The Normans also cannot count as France, because, again, they weren't actually fighting in the name of France."
I would tend to agree with you. But you have to know that this is really debatable. There were many French in William's army. The Normans had been "frenchified" and the Normans were vassals to the king of France...

Lets clear this up. The Normans were French. They had more than some French in their army ... their army was French. They called themselves French, and are called French by all their neighbours, the English, Welsh, Irish, Scots, Italians, Greeks and Arabs.

UnspokenRequest

Apr 19, 2007, 12:45 PM

Sentences like "France does not deserve a spot on the world stage with their spotty military record and abysmal peace keeping abilities"
and
"France should not have the same representation in Civ IV as England, Russia, or even America."
leads to believe that your comments go far beyond adding or not adding another Leader in Civ4. At times, you seemed to question whether France should even be included in Civ4!
"You are reaching to justify Charles and I say their are better leaders then him not added yet."
I never read this from you before. You simply questionned De Gaulle's merit. You never tried to make any comparison with other potential leaders. All I'm saying is that De Gaulle has achieved more than enough to be included. He's on par with Churchill in terms of achievements. For this reason yes he is a worthy candidate. That's all I'm saying.
Now if you want to argue that there are other candidates who should be included before a third French leader be included. That is a whole different thing. Yes, Greece should have another leader. Periclès maybe. But that has never been my point. My point has always been that De Gaulle's achievement are more than enough to have him included. Period. As I said. I think De Gaulle would be just as worthy as Louis XIV is. This debate has never been about whether or not Firaxis should prefer other leaders (especially for civs who have only one). It was solely about De Gaulle's achievements.

Now, WW1 (for most of it) as a whole is a gigantic and bloody stalemate! It doesn't change the fact that the most important offensive by the German forces was repelled by the French at Verdun. The France's forces were outnumbered by the way.

100 years war.
1) Actually, Kings of England had lands in France. After the war, they had not.
2) The war was over the King of England's claim on the French crown. The throne remained in the hands of Frenchmen. The throne was the major goal of the war. Not land. It's a dynastic war. France won the throne.

On surrender in WW2.
Petain surrendered. De Gaulle and many other important Frenchmen refused to surrender.They created a regime outside of continental France. They called themselves la France libre. It was a government in exile Here's the thing... So did France surrender? Debatable.

"They never were the top dog in history, they always played second fiddle to Spain, Britain, and now America"
That's false. Virtually all historians agree that at the end of the 30 year's war in 1648 (A VERY important conflict, which they won decisively), France IS the dominant power in Europe. France has by far the greatest population, the strongest (agricultural,which is still normal at the time) economy, a burgeoning colonial empire and the best army.
They kept this dominant position until Louis XIV's death in 1715. Some even say that it goes a further into the mid-18th century. Some say that France's dominance really stops at the seven years war and not before that. Others claim it stops at 1713. That all depends, but it doesn't change the fact that for at the very least 60 years. France was the dominant power.
They reclaimed this position for a time this dominant position after the revolution 1789 and until the early 1810s, under Napoleon's rule. To show this, one of Vienna's conference's (1815) main political goal was to find a way to "contain" France's power. The same kind of european alliance to "contain" France occured while Louis XIV was in power. All Europe was afraid of him, especially Holand and Great Britain.
+ Many medieval historians would also say that France was clearly the strongest power in some periods of the middle ages. Under Philippe Auguste and Philippe Lebel for instance.

"If we are just adding civs based on great people and buildings..."
There are many reasons to add civs and leaders. This is an endless debate. Some reasons can be political and military, others are related to a civilization's impact on the world. You're right that if it was only cultural, it would be detrimental to some civs. However, if it was only military, then, there would be no Aztecs or Incas...

I would say French's overall military record is average or slightly above average. Add to the fact that France's ideas, politics and culture were tremendously influential... How can anyone question their place in Civ4? They did so much.

One anecdote. You surely know the expression. Lingua Franca. English is today's lingua Franca in economy and international politics. Why lingua FRANCA. Because until the 19th century (and in many diplomatic circles sometimes even until the 20th century), French was THE language of diplomacy, of culture, of refinement and of anything international...

BTW, I'm not really pro-French, it's just that I live in an environment (I'm Canadian) where many things French are constantly critized. Sometimes for no logical reasons. There is an anti-french bias in the Anglo-saxon world that annoys me. For instance, these people asked Michaelle Jean and Stephane Dion to renounce to their French citizenship. They don't care that many Canadians governors had the British citizenship as well. Same with opposition leader or Prime minister. British or american citizenship= fine. French citizenship= a question mark on the politician's loyalty toward Canada. How biased is that?

UnspokenRequest

Apr 19, 2007, 12:53 PM

Lets clear this up. The Normans were French. They had more than some French in their army ... their army was French. They called themselves French, and are called French by all their neighbours, the English, Welsh, Irish, Scots, Italians, Greeks and Arabs.

I know that is what many historians say, but I didn't want to start a debate on that since it is not a part of history I'm THAT familiar with.
I know that most Anglophones learn the version of history which says that it is solely the Normans who conquered them, not the French. I think it is a matter of National pride. The English wouldn't like to admit that the last time they were conquered was at the hand of their old french ennemies...

Still, it is clear that after 1066, the old english language was drastically frenchified... and until the 100 years war. French was the language spoken at the King of England's court.
"But the 1066 conquest has nothing to do with France". ;)

Lord Olleus

Apr 19, 2007, 04:01 PM

rabidveggie

Apr 19, 2007, 05:56 PM

Stop twisting my words I never specifically said France should not be in the game. Was Napoleon a brilliant general? Yes and he changed the face of the world. Does Louis the XIV deserve to be in the game? Yes under him France experienced a golden age. In fact I don't believe Abe Lincoln deserves a spot just because he is only really famous in his own nation. Charles even outranks Hannibal in my opinion. France's effect on the world is indisputable, but I just think that really no nation should have three leaders. My wording did indeed sound like an attack on France and I apologize for this. I apparently was misinformed about French history which is sad because I live in Canada which is influenced by France, and Britain. You all argued your points most diligently and I know a few words will not sway your oppinion. If the majority of people do indeed want Charles de Gaulle in the game who am I to say he doesn't.

Vatras

Apr 19, 2007, 06:35 PM

And on an afterthought:
- France was considered from the time of Louis le grande the premier power in europe, and it lost that nimbus only in 1871, when it was defeated by the germans, and Bismarck created the 2nd Reich in Versailles with his king, Wilhelm I., as the new Emperor of Germany.

- If I had to choose someone to represent France in Civ IV as its leader, I think it would not be a king or president...I have Armand Jean du Plessis, Duc de Richelieu, better known as The Cardinal and the grey eminence behind Louis XIII., coming to mind.

Saim

Apr 19, 2007, 06:39 PM

I dunno about De Gaulle, I think Joan d'Arc and Charlemagne are more important than him.

rabidveggie

Apr 19, 2007, 07:06 PM

Charlemagne's work was quickly undone by a wave of barbarians and Joan de Arc wasn't a ruler of France. Maybe she could become a great general or great prophet.

UnspokenRequest

Apr 19, 2007, 07:22 PM

If I had to choose someone to represent France in Civ IV as its leader, I think it would not be a king or president...I have Armand Jean du Plessis, Duc de Richelieu, better known as The Cardinal and the grey eminence behind Louis XIII., coming to mind.

I second that. Cardinal de Richelieu was a hell of a statesman. No doubt about it. He's one the main reason France won the 30 years war, even though he didn't see the end of it if I remember correctly.

As for Joan of Arc. I agree with rabidveggie (!), she's not a statesman.
For Charlemagne however, I don't agree with him. His Empire got split between his sons (and his grandson, I think). That was his choice and the way things were done at the time. There's no shame about it. BTW, he's considered the father of Europe. Merit is not the question here. Nationality is the problem.
The thing is that some would say he is not entirely French... He is Frank, which is slightly different.

@rabidveggie
I didn't mean to twist your words. I said that is what I thought you were saying. I know now that is not what you meant, but that really wasn't clear from the start. Glad everything is cleared up. :)

xiaojuzi

Apr 19, 2007, 07:24 PM

Are German Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains allowed to use the swastika for the standard religious purposes?

no，the two symbol are not identical...the swastika is clockwise rotated,but the buddhist symbol can be rotated anticlockwise(occasionally clockwise however).for a standard religious purpose,just use the anticlockwise type.

LAnkou

Apr 20, 2007, 02:36 AM

Well, in France, Charles de Gaulle is considered a higher leader than Richelieu and Joan of Arc is an heroin, but that's all.

Charles de Gaulle would be a very good leader for France, despite the fact that he may be a little too recent...

The issue with Charlemagne is that, as Charles Quint with Spain and Germany, he can be considered a leader for different civilisation (at least France and Germany)...

Elras

Apr 20, 2007, 02:55 AM

Before William the Bastard invaded England he rebelled from France (yes rebelled, he had sworn allegiance to the King of France) and tried to seize the throne. He failed abysmaly and his army was routed. So he tried to seize the Egnlish throne, which he did. The english surrendered after a single battle, which is even faster than France did in WW2.

A big harsh on the English there...Harold One-Eye (Saxon King) had to fight
on 2 fronts ..the Norwegians (I guess the Vikings in Civ4) up north
('orrible Harold Harada) and the Normans (William) down in the South.

The Saxon Amry fought and defeated the Vikings up north at Stamford Bridge
...then had to march back down South to face the Normans at Hastings.

The Saxons might have beaten the Norman Army too if they hadn't
fallen for the olde 'you've routed us, we're retreating..chase us chase us...
right into the waiting laps of the Norman Heavy Cavalry' ploy :)

Even in Civ4 it's real hard fighting 2 opponents on 2 fronts.

On the Swastika question...it is/was a Hindu symbol originally but as
olde Hitler was a bit of a religious nutball...he liked it, nicked it, swapped the
orientation and made it the symbol of the Nazi Party.

*shrug* What can ya do?

Cheers
Elras

LAnkou

Apr 20, 2007, 06:07 AM

Speaking of Charles de Gaulle, let me share something with you.

During his first presidential campaign, he went to a theater to see a "piece de théatre" (theater play). During a between act, he went to the bathroom where André Malraux was already busy.

They were side by side, and Malraux said:
"Belle piece mon général!" (great play, my general!)
"Malraux, regardez devant vous!" (Marlaux, look in front of you!)

This is enough for him to be included i think!!!

for those who didn't understand, that's a pun on "Piece" which means a play (like a theater play) and an object...

Scaramanga

Apr 20, 2007, 06:35 AM

NYHunter

Apr 20, 2007, 06:44 AM

The reason I never heard of Charles de Gaulle is that the victors of a war write the history books and France was a loser despite gaining a little of Berlin.

I just have an American high school history course knowledge of WWII, but I have indeed heard of Charles de Gaulle and know his significance. I find it hard to believe that someone who knows "quite a bit" about WWII, is not at least somewhat familiar with the name. Perhaps you make up for that with extensive knowledge on everything else in WWII but people who are very educated in WWII know who de Gaulle is, or at least they should.

France should not have the same representation in Civ IV as England, Russia, or even America.

Interesting opinion. Personally I don't give a crap (at least not to the extreme that some people take it) about what civ has representation in Civ IV, because it's a game not some Hall of Fame contest or documentary on the best cultures in the world. I understand that some people get passionate over this but seriously, it is just a game.

Also what do you mean by "the same representation"? Because, France as a civ deserves to be there. But, I don't know whether you mean it shouldn't be there at all or something else... this whole discussion is useless as Firaxis already knows that France is important and it will be in any future editions of the game.

rabidveggie

Apr 20, 2007, 06:51 AM

I already tried to clearify those statesman. Maybe I had heard of Charles de Gaulle, but I just don't remember. Anyhow please stop chewing me out for my retard statements. :p

NYHunter

Apr 20, 2007, 07:16 AM

Yea. I read the post in order, so I hadn't got to the post where you cleared everything up yet. :)

I agree, that it is ridiculous for some civs to have three leaders while others only have one. :goodjob:

I already tried to clearify those statesman. Maybe I had heard of Charles de Gaulle, but I just don't remember. Anyhow please stop chewing me out for my retard statements. :p

UnspokenRequest

Apr 20, 2007, 02:33 PM

Well, in France, Charles de Gaulle is considered a higher leader than Richelieu

Is it possible that this perception is mainly related to the fact that many films/movies/animated series based on Alexandre Duma's Les trois mousquetaires portray le Cardinal de Richelieu as a vilain?

Having read The Three Musketeers, I know that Dumas didn't portray the guy as "a vilain". More like a determined statesman.

I know that Richelieu had a slight autoritarian tendency, but you can't judge him by today's standards on this. He was facing a France on the brink of civil war and he had to transform it into a power capable of winning one of the bloodiest conflict by the time's standards.

LAnkou

Apr 20, 2007, 02:44 PM

his toumb inscription is:
"If i were living, you wouldn't"

How can you say he wasn't portrayed as a villain? :lol:

Another history irony, he?

UnspokenRequest

Apr 20, 2007, 03:14 PM

I said he was often portrayed as a vilain. However, Dumas' portrayal is not that bad.
I remember many representations of Richelieu as a clearly evil guy.
However, in Dumas' book, I never saw him as "evil". Of course, he is the main antagonist of Les trois mousquetaires, but he is not some evil freak bent on killing anyone or anything against him. He is no Hitler or Staline, if you understand what I mean.

About, the inscription on the tomb. My irony detector is confused about this one. That's a joke right?

LAnkou

Apr 21, 2007, 09:32 AM

my mistake...

i checked the epitaph and it was Robespierre one..

Richelieu one is:
Cy-gist, oui, gist, par la mort-bleu !
Le cardinal de Richelieu ;
Et ce qui cause mon ennui,
Ma pension avecque lui.
Ci-gît un fameux Cardinal
Qui fit plus de mal que de bien
Le bien qu'il fit, il le fit mal
Le mal qu'il fit, il le fit bien.

the last part translated:
here lies a famour cardinal
who made more bad than good
The good he made, he made it bad
the bad he made, he made it well

that's difficult to translate it properly because the word "bien" have many meanings (very close but the subtilty is expressed in different word in english)

that's still an epithaph for people not painted as good people..

totally out of subject, but Marylin Monroe epitaph is:
here lies Marylin Monroe, 97 - 62 - 92

Oda Nobunaga

Apr 21, 2007, 12:29 PM

To be fair, Richelieu was a target of hatred for the nobility because he constantly worked to undermine them and to centralize France ; and I would imagine that the church had a grudge against him for his having France break the Catholic party line and back the Protestant in the thirty years war...

...so no surprise his epitaph would be somewhat non-glorious.

However, the blunt truth is, talk about the Sun King and France's glory all you want, but almost everything Louis XIV had, Richelieu (and his protégé Mazarin) handed him on a platter.

Saim

Apr 22, 2007, 11:40 PM

On the Swastika question...it is/was a Hindu symbol originally but as
olde Hitler was a bit of a religious nutball...he liked it, nicked it, swapped the
orientation and made it the symbol of the Nazi Party.
I heard that the reason was to identify Germany with the Aryans, the first known users of the symbol, and instill racial pride.

Elras

Apr 23, 2007, 06:39 AM

I heard that the reason was to identify Germany with the Aryans, the first known users of the symbol, and instill racial pride.

The sad thing is (and shows how we stupid humans can so easily be lead by
a charismatic leader) if you hold Hitler, Himmler, Goering, etc up to their own
aspired Aryan ideals...blond, blue eyed, firm buttocked....all these nutballs
fail their own test! :)

Even if the Fascists had won, sooner or later someone would have noticed
this fact.

Cheers
Elras.

Lord Olleus

Apr 23, 2007, 10:24 AM

Not really. Having blonde hair and blue eyes means that you are Aryan, not having those doesn't mean that you can't be Aryan. Just because A implies B does not mean that B implies A.

rabidveggie

Apr 23, 2007, 10:30 AM

What is actually ironic is that Hitler was not originally German, he was born in Austria and eventually immigrated to Germany.

Onagan

Apr 23, 2007, 01:50 PM

I dunno about De Gaulle, I think Joan d'Arc and Charlemagne are more important than him.

Charlemagne will never be added as a French leader, because he's a German

About the hitler discussion, He may not be a good leader for Germany, but at least he changed history. no one can denied that.

flyingchicken

Apr 23, 2007, 03:46 PM

Charlemagne will never be added as a French leader, because he's a German
Oh sweet irony, what have you done? For we of meager minds know that "Charlemagne" is the name that Karl der Große is known in French! :D

UnspokenRequest

Apr 23, 2007, 03:51 PM

Charlemagne will never be added as a French leader, because he's a German

About the hitler discussion, He may not be a good leader for Germany, but at least he changed history. no one can denied that.

He is not more a German than he is a French. He is a Frank.
The Franks were a germanic tribe (which is not exactly the same as germans; for instance other germanic tribes settled in Spain and Italy) that settled in the French regions at the end of the Western Roman empire. Clovis was the leader of that tribe when they settled in the remnants of the Western empire (Mainly in Gaul).

Most historians say today's French are descended from a mix of Frank (associated with the aristocracy) and Gaul (associated with the peasantry), seasoned with a bit of Latin and Norman culture.

Of course, Charlemagne is also related (more politically than ethnically) to today's Germans because of the Carolingian empire relation to the Holy Roman Empire.

ZB2

Apr 23, 2007, 03:58 PM

if you hold Hitler, Himmler, Goering, etc up to their own
aspired Aryan ideals...blond, blue eyed, firm buttocked....all these nutballs
fail their own test! :)

Actually they believed the desendants of the Ayran race were Nordic, and strove to make good terms with nordic people, having particular influence in Norway, whos ayran-nordic propaganda capaign had a lot of people enlisting in the German army. These soldiers were noted for fighting much more fiercly; - they were brought to believe that becuase of their nordic-aryan heritage they would never be captured but shot on the spot, so they fought to the death.

UnspokenRequest

Apr 23, 2007, 04:08 PM

Ci-gît un fameux Cardinal
Qui fit plus de mal que de bien
Le bien qu'il fit, il le fit mal
Le mal qu'il fit, il le fit bien.

the last part translated:
here lies a famour cardinal
who made more bad than good
The good he made, he made it bad
the bad he made, he made it well

Thanks for the translation, but since French is my first language (I'm Québécois), I didn't need it.

I agree with what Oda Nobunaga said of Richelieu.

Had he not been there, I think France would have found itself in the worst of troubles. Marie de Médicis was doing the worst of job as "Reine-mère" and Louis XIII was hardly the leader France needed at the time. On a side note: I'm still amazed by the fact that this unwitty guy was the father of Louis XIV. (BTW, there always were some rumors that Anne d'Autriche and Cardinal de Mazarin were quite close...)

Instead, he set France on the path of a golden age. I'll also add that he was hated because, during the 30 years war, he allied himself with Sweden (Protestants) instead of helping the catholic cause. Richelieu had to choose between Religion and la raison d'État. He chose reason of state. He was a pragmatic.

totally out of subject, but Marylin Monroe epitaph is:
here lies Marylin Monroe, 97 - 62 - 92

:lol: Now that is an epitaph!!!

Jan H

Apr 24, 2007, 02:11 AM

He is not more a German than he is a French. He is a Frank.
The Franks were a germanic tribe (which is not exactly the same as germans; for instance other germanic tribes settled in Spain and Italy) that settled in the French regions at the end of the Western Roman empire. Clovis was the leader of that tribe when they settled in the remnants of the Western empire (Mainly in Gaul).

Most historians say today's French are descended from a mix of Frank (associated with the aristocracy) and Gaul (associated with the peasantry), seasoned with a bit of Latin and Norman culture.

Of course, Charlemagne is also related (more politically than ethnically) to today's Germans because of the Carolingian empire relation to the Holy Roman Empire.

To add a bit to the confusion: Most historians agree that Charlemagne was born near Liege in Belgium (his predecessors, like Pippin the Short, came from the same area), and his primary language was probably "Low-Franconian", the languages of the Franks living int he Low countries, which is a direct ancestor of the Dutch language.

He was burried in Aachen, which is located in Germany, but right on the border with Belgium and The Netherlands.