View Full Version : BTS FALLACY - Charlemagne has NEVER ruled the Holy Roman Empire !


Marla_Singer
Jun 15, 2007, 07:07 PM
Charlemagne was the ruler of the Frankish Kingdom, mainly located in today's France. From this, he has established through Conquest a large Empire encompassing most of today's France, Germany, Benelux and Northern Italy. In 800, he has been crowned "Emperor of the West" and remained as such untill his death in 814. His son, Louis le Pieux, became the new ruler of the Empire.

When Louis le Pieux died in 843, it's been decided to divide the Empire between his 3 sons at the Treaty of Verdun. The three parts of the Carolingian Empire were divided as such :
- Charles the Bald became King of Western Francia (ancestor of France)
- Louis the German became King of Eastern Francia (ancestor of Germany)
- Lothair I became King of Middle Francia (ancestor of no one as he got screwed up by his two brothers).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/843-870_Europe.jpg

What is remembered as the Holy Roman Empire is NOT the Carolingian Empire, but actually the Eastern Francia inherited by Louis the German. Hence, what became the Holy Roman Empire is only one third of the Carolingian Empire that became an independent entity only in 843 at the Treaty of Verdun. Apparently, the adjective "Holy" to designate it appeared only during the 12th century under the rule of Barbarossa.

It's totally unrespectful of History to consider Charlemagne as the ruler of a civ having this name. Actually, it would be exactly the same as considering Constantine as the ruler of the Byzantine Empire.

ChrTh
Jun 15, 2007, 07:17 PM
Hannibal never ruled Carthage, and Gandhi never ruled India.
(Not debating the argument of Charlemagne as leader of the HRE, just pointing out that this isn't new territory for Firaxis)

Marla_Singer
Jun 15, 2007, 07:17 PM
So now, the question Firaxis should ask itself is :
What could we do when we make such an awful ridiculous fallacy that will make laugh the whole world and we realize it so close to the game release ?

There's only three choices : Change the name of the leader (Barbarossa being a more obvious representative of the HRE)
Changing the name of the civ (probably Western Empire or Carolingian Empire).
Removing the whole civ or keeping it strictly forr a scenario.

ChrTh
Jun 15, 2007, 07:18 PM
You forgot option 4: they don't care, and will release it as is.

TheLastOne36
Jun 15, 2007, 07:21 PM
You forgot option 4: they don't care, and will release it as is.

And get tons of angry fan mail.

ChrTh
Jun 15, 2007, 07:23 PM
And get tons of angry fan mail.

It'll help pad the bed of cash they're sleeping on.

Look, I agree it's historically inaccurate. But people LOVE Charlemagne, and will gladly embrace it.

Most don't complain about Julius Caesar running the "Roman Empire", why would there be a lot of complaints about this?

dcbandicoot
Jun 15, 2007, 07:23 PM
Don't forget, we on the site constitute only a small percentage of Civ players.... a lot/most people won't know and won't care..

Marla_Singer
Jun 15, 2007, 07:24 PM
Hannibal never ruled Carthage, and Gandhi never ruled India.The French Kingdom is as much the heir of the Carolingian Empire as is the Holy Roman Empire.

I'm sorry but I'm French, and I can tell you that it does matter for me to see all of a sudden Charlemagne being removed from the History of my country. At least Hannibal was from Carthages and Gandhi was from India. The same would be true with Joan of Arch being from France.

Charlemagne IS NOT from the Holy roman empire. He's a FRANKISH KING.

Would you consider Queen Victoria as Australian ? Would you consider George II of England as American ? I'm sorry but this does not make sense at all !

Gaius Octavius
Jun 15, 2007, 07:26 PM
It bothers me when the designers make glaring historical errors such as this. I absolutely went ballistic when I saw the Roman UU: the "Praetorian." :confused:

What makes it even worse is when somebody comes up with some silly remark, "Oh it's not about history, it's about gameplay." To that, I often respond: "I propose a new Roman UU: the kamikaze. We who are about to die salute you!"

ChrTh
Jun 15, 2007, 07:30 PM
The French Kingdom is as much the heir of the Carolingian Empire as is the Holy Roman Empire.

..snip...

Would you consider Queen Victoria as Australian ?


You just contradicted yourself. If the French Kingdom is an heir of the Carolingian Empire, and thus Charlemagne is part of French history, then Australia is an heir of the British Empire, and Queen Victoria is part of Australian history.

Marla_Singer
Jun 15, 2007, 07:38 PM
You just contradicted yourself. If the French Kingdom is an heir of the Carolingian Empire, and thus Charlemagne is part of French history, then Australia is an heir of the British Empire, and Queen Victoria is part of Australian history.There's no contradiction. Queen Victoria is indeed part of Australian history, but that doesn't make her Australian. Considering Queen Victoria as the ruler of the Australian civilization would be a major flaw wouldn't you think ?

When a large empire is divided in 3 parts, the ruler of that large Empire cannot be considered as being the leader of only one of the remaining parts, as he's as much part of the History of the two other remaining parts.

Charlemagne is indeed as much part of French than German History. We can't deny this simply because "it would be great to have Charlemagne in the game".

Actually, THE solution could be simply to call the new civilization "Frankish Kingdom" or "Frankish Realm". After all, the Franks have been one of the most influent Barbarian tribe in the early Middle Age.

ChrTh
Jun 15, 2007, 07:41 PM
Think about it this way: if they had Charlemagne as French or German, the outcry would be far greater from the denied half than over he being leader of the HRE.

Besides, you can always mod the xml to say Frankish.

Marla_Singer
Jun 15, 2007, 07:56 PM
Think about it this way: if they had Charlemagne as French or German, the outcry would be far greater from the denied half than over he being leader of the HRE.

Besides, you can always mod the xml to say Frankish.Considering Charlemagne as leader of the HRE is EXACTLY considering him as German ! The full name of the HRE is "Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicæ", which means "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation".

taillesskangaru
Jun 15, 2007, 08:00 PM
Hannibal never ruled Carthage, and Gandhi never ruled India.
(Not debating the argument of Charlemagne as leader of the HRE, just pointing out that this isn't new territory for Firaxis)

Hannibal ruled Carthage as suffet for a few years after the Punic War.
Gandhi never ruled India but lead it to independence.

taillesskangaru
Jun 15, 2007, 08:01 PM
Maybe they could add Charlemagne as a leader but not afflilate him with any civ?

Thrallia
Jun 15, 2007, 08:24 PM
If the Holy Roman Empire came out of Charlemagne's empire, why is it wrong to have him as the leader of that empire?

Charlemagne was crowned 'Emperor of the Western Roman Empire,' not 'Emperor of the Western'...that makes no sense! Its an incomplete title!

The reason he is not a leader of France is because they have two leaders. The reason he is not a leader of Germany is because Germany didn't exist until the late 1800s.
It makes plenty of sense to make Charlemagne the leader of an entirely new civ called the Holy Roman Empire, when he did infact rule the entirety of it, and it was later split by his descendents into France and the HRE.

He may have originated in France, but it was due to his wars that Central Europe was united for the first time since Rome fell, and when he is considered the first 'Emperor of the Western Roman Empire' since the fall of Rome, it is entirely understandable for him to be its ruler.

ohcrapitsnico
Jun 15, 2007, 08:26 PM
The damage Firaxis did is done and I don't think they will undo it.

Marla_Singer
Jun 15, 2007, 08:35 PM
If the Holy Roman Empire came out of Charlemagne's empire, why is it wrong to have him as the leader of that empire?

Charlemagne was crowned 'Emperor of the Western Roman Empire,' not 'Emperor of the Western'...that makes no sense! Its an incomplete title!In French, the name of his Empire has always been tought to me as the "Empire d'Occident" (aka "Empire of the West"). This has no link whatsoever with the HRE. What I mean is that the Eastern offshoot which became the HRE hasn't taken the name of the Carolingian Empire.

The reason he is not a leader of France is because they have two leaders. The reason he is not a leader of Germany is because Germany didn't exist until the late 1800s.
It makes plenty of sense to make Charlemagne the leader of an entirely new civ called the Holy Roman Empire, when he did infact rule the entirety of it, and it was later split by his descendents into France and the HRE.

He may have originated in France, but it was due to his wars that Central Europe was united for the first time since Rome fell, and when he is considered the first 'Emperor of the Western Roman Empire' since the fall of Rome, it is entirely understandable for him to be its ruler.What you don't seem to understand is that the French Kingdom is AS MUCH an offshoot of the Carolingian Empire than is the HRE, not less !

I'm sorry, but no one has the right to steal Charlemagne from France's inheritance simply because "france has two leaders". AFAIK, Germany also has already 2 leaders (Bismarck and Friedrich). That's a totally silly argument.

Dutch Canuck
Jun 15, 2007, 08:39 PM
It just dawned on me that I don't ever recall any direct connection between Charlemagne and HRE. Did Firaxis specifically affirm who the leaderhead for HRE would be? Maybe they chose someone else to lead the HRE in the main game and Charlemagne only appears in a scenerio involving HRE?

Firaxis has been skillfully vague on a great many details! :(

Mango
Jun 15, 2007, 08:41 PM
And Joan of Arc never ruled France, but that didn't stop her from being in Civ 3.

ChrTh
Jun 15, 2007, 08:47 PM
And Joan of Arc never ruled France, but that didn't stop her from being in Civ 3.

But Joan was hot, and that was what was important. :love:

DarthDutch Canuck brings up a good point -- maybe Otto will be the leader of the HRE?

Nah, it'll be Charlemagne. He was crowned "Roman Emperor" (Holy was implied?)

And making him a Roman leader would cheese off a lot more people.

Revolutionary
Jun 15, 2007, 08:49 PM
I agree,

I mean what the hell! they decided to add a civ that is better represented by Germany and had overlapping territory with 5 other in game civs! (France, Germany, Celts, Rome, and the Netherlands)

come on! if they were going to add another Germanic civ it should of been the Austrian empire

on top of that instead of making it say a Habsburg/Austrian led HRE they put Charlemagne who led a pre HRE empire which was far larger!

not to mention the constant wars fought between the states of the HRE :shake:

Quintillus
Jun 15, 2007, 09:15 PM
I agree with Barbarossa being a better choice for HRE, and Charlemagne being a much better fit for France. And with Austria or the Austro-Hungarian Empire being a better choice for a new European civ.

It's not too late for a change. It's unlikely now that it's announced, but they haven't made the final changes yet.

Oh, and the praetorian name didn't seem right to me either. AFAIK the praetorians were always a very small percentage of the legions, so "Legionary" would have been a more appropriate name.

Thrallia
Jun 15, 2007, 09:18 PM
In French, the name of his Empire has always been tought to me as the "Empire d'Occident" (aka "Empire of the West"). This has no link whatsoever with the HRE. What I mean is that the Eastern offshoot which became the HRE hasn't taken the name of the Carolingian Empire.

What you don't seem to understand is that the French Kingdom is AS MUCH an offshoot of the Carolingian Empire than is the HRE, not less !

I'm sorry, but no one has the right to steal Charlemagne from France's inheritance simply because "france has two leaders". AFAIK, Germany also has already 2 leaders (Bismarck and Friedrich). That's a totally silly argument.

You've been taught wrong then. He was crowned Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, not just Emperor of the West. The Roman Catholic Church was attempting to revive the Roman Empire, thus why Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of Rome, essentially. However, his son didn't seem to understand this importance, as he was willing to split up Charlemagne's 'Western Roman Empire' into Frankish and Germanic states...the Germanic state kept most of northern Italy, thus why it became the Holy Roman Empire.

I understand completely that France is as much an offshoot of Charlemagne's empire as the HRE is...however Germany owes more to Charlemagne's unification than France does...without the unification of all the Germanic tribes into some semblence of a country, then its likely one of two things would have occurred, 1) the Dark ages would have lasted much longer due to the proliferation of 'barbarian' tribes in Germany, or 2) Khan wouldn't have been able to be stopped in Poland and would have taken over a much larger chunk of Europe.

As for the number of leaders France and Germany have...that's the number of leaders most civs seem to have...AFAIK only England, Russia and America will have 3 leaders in the next expansion. I would prefer to have France and the HRE and take out Germany, with Frederick and Charlemagne being the rulers of the HRE...since Germany is a very recent country. I'm not saying that Charlemagne doesn't belong to French history, I'm saying that perhaps you should consider the fact that the original HRE was begun with Charlemagne and his son, and included France...it wasn't until his grandsons that France was made separate from the HRE.

Marla_Singer
Jun 15, 2007, 09:21 PM
And Joan of Arc never ruled France, but that didn't stop her from being in Civ 3.She was French at least. Charlemagne isn't even from the Holy Roman Empire ! He's a Frankish king for Christ sake !

What next ? Gandhi as leader of Pakistan ?

Breunor
Jun 15, 2007, 09:25 PM
Sorry Marla, I don't agree. ALthough the 'formal' date for the HRE is hard to determine, the 'standard' is 800 AD when Leo III crowned Charlemagne. It wasn't offically called the HRE until Frederick I, but saying that the HRE began under Charlemagne is considered correct by a lot of peope. Its OK if you don't agree, but to say Firaxis is 'wrong' is hard to justify.

As you pointed out, you can also use the treaty of Verdun as a dividing point, but there are LOTS of history books that put 800 AD as the staring date.

Breunor

Padraig
Jun 15, 2007, 09:31 PM
So what will there adjective descriptor be? Holy Roman? :eek: or perhaps just Holy :lol:

Marla_Singer
Jun 15, 2007, 09:37 PM
Nah, it'll be Charlemagne. He was crowned "Roman Emperor" (Holy was implied?)Charlemagne has been crowned "Western Roman Emperor". He hasn't been crowned "Holy Roman Emperor of the German Nation". It's not because there's the word "Roman" in both case that it is the same thing.

According to any of my History books, the HRE has been founded by Otto the Great in 962. And that Empire actually became "holy" under Barbarossa during the 12th century. It is indeed an offshoot from the Carolingian Empire, but not more than the French kingdom is another offshoot of the same Empire

Mango
Jun 15, 2007, 09:39 PM
She was French at least. Charlemagne isn't even from the Holy Roman Empire ! He's a Frankish king for Christ sake !

What next ? Gandhi as leader of Pakistan ?

At least he was a ruler. Joan of Arc just inspired some people. She didn't even have a career after that. I think she was burned to death about 2 years after, wasn't she? I mean she is a very famous French person, but that's about it. I have no problem with military leaders like Hannibal being added, but she never even commanded troops from my knowledge.

But yes, I understand the Charlemagne thing. The problem is they wanted to include him and they wanted to include the HRE. It's an unfortunate pairing to say the least, but both are deserving.

That said I think we have had our fill of Europe. I know that as an American company Firaxis must appeal to our Eurocentric ways, but we really need more Asian civs. I'd like to see some representation from Polynesia for their abilities to navigate the oceans. They populated freaking Madagascar before the Africans did and they reached Easter Island (and maybe even South America).

I'd also like to see more representation from South America. Just having the Incans isn't enough IMO. We need a more modern day example, even if it has to be a "weak" choice such as Brazil. Yeah, sorry all you Brazilians, but it would be weak. Still, I think it would be more flavorful than another Western European civ.

Marla_Singer
Jun 15, 2007, 09:48 PM
Sorry Marla, I don't agree. ALthough the 'formal' date for the HRE is hard to determine, the 'standard' is 800 AD when Leo III crowned Charlemagne. It wasn't offically called the HRE until Frederick I, but saying that the HRE began under Charlemagne is considered correct by a lot of peope. Its OK if you don't agree, but to say Firaxis is 'wrong' is hard to justify.

As you pointed out, you can also use the treaty of Verdun as a dividing point, but there are LOTS of history books that put 800 AD as the staring date.

BreunorWhere's the legitimacy of this ? The Carolingian Empire has been dismantled by the Treaty of Verdun ! I'm sorry but I'm trying to be as open-minded as possible, it just doesn't make sense. The HRE is and has always been an offshoot of the Carolingian Empire.

And Charlemagne doesn't come out of nowhere, he's a Frankish King from the Carolingian dynasty, founded by Charles Martel in 714. Charles Martel being famous for having halted the Umayyad invasions of Europe during the Arab Expansion Era.

It's just totally silly to consider Charlemagne as the founder of the HRE. I have simply never read that anywhere in the past.

Ruberkaiser
Jun 15, 2007, 09:49 PM
The Holy Roman Empire is not "German". It was centred for most of its duration in the region that since 1871 has been known as Germany. However, the Holy Roman Empire also included at various stages parts of numerous other European states, including northern Italy. Besides, although there is another thread for this, it wasn't really an Empire, but rather a loose confederation of states, many of which were German.

Charlemagne is credited as being the father of the Holy Roman Empire, which became a symbol of German unity only from the 15th Century onwards. In its origin it was the culmination of Charlemagne's christianisation. Pope Leo III awarded Charlemagne the title of Holy Roman Empire in part to secure the dominance of Roman Christianity in the west with Roman Catholisism and not in the East with Greek Orthodoxy in the Byzantine Emperire.

Barbarossa in the eleventh century was the first to call the empire "Holy" and increased the emphasis on "roman", but as an historical entity the "empire of the west" was in fact the origin. Furthermore, because the Holy Roman Empire is not really an Empire, one can safely say that it was this entitlement of "Emperor of the West" that enabled the HRE to exist, for an empire cannot exist without an emperor. Therefore to claim that the Holy Roman Empire begins after the partitioning of the Carolingian Empire is fundamentally flawed , because you are thereby omitting the very origin of the title and station that facilitated the Empires existence.

Marla_Singer
Jun 15, 2007, 09:53 PM
At least he was a ruler. Joan of Arc just inspired some people.Well, I've never been a fan of the choice of Joan of Arc to represent France, so don't count on me to defend that choice, but I think it's simply even worse to consider someone who's not even from the civilization in question.

Marla_Singer
Jun 15, 2007, 10:01 PM
The Holy Roman Empire is not "German". It was centred for most of its duration in the region that since 1871 has been known as Germany. However, the Holy Roman Empire also included at various stages parts of numerous other European states, including northern Italy. Besides, although there is another thread for this, it wasn't really an Empire, but rather a loose confederation of states, many of which were German.The Holy Roman Empire was German.

Its full name was "Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicæ" (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation), which means Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

Charlemagne is credited as being the father of the Holy Roman Empire, which became a symbol of German unity only from the 15th Century onwards. In its origin it was the culmination of Charlemagne's christianisation. Pope Leo III awarded Charlemagne the title of Holy Roman Empire in part to secure the dominance of Roman Christianity in the west with Roman Catholisism and not in the East with Greek Orthodoxy in the Byzantine Emperire.Well, so what ? Charlemagne is considered as a French ruler too. So pick your choice. You can put it as ruler of both civilizations if you want.

Barbarossa in the eleventh century was the first to call the empire "Holy" and increased the emphasis on "roman", but as an historical entity the "empire of the west" was in fact the origin. Furthermore, because the Holy Roman Empire is not really an Empire, one can safely say that it was this entitlement of "Emperor of the West" that enabled the HRE to exist, for an empire cannot exist without an emperor. Therefore to claim that the Holy Roman Empire begins after the partitioning of the Carolingian Empire is fundamentally flawed , because you are thereby omitting the very origin of the title and station that facilitated the Empires existence.The Carolingian Empire and the Holy Roman Empire are both different. One is an offshoot of the other. Actually, following up the dynasties of French Kings, you'll realize that actually it makes more sense to consider the Carolingian Empire as being the French Kingdom since the French crown is directly inherited from the Frankish crown. Would you tell me that Franks aren't part of French History either now ?

ohcrapitsnico
Jun 15, 2007, 10:47 PM
It shouldn't be an argument over whether the HRE was german or not since the HRE was actually a german confederacy in germany of mainly germans. However Charlemagne could be either french or german. I think it would be ridiculous too if they called the new civ the carolingians because just like the HRE they were periods of rule in a nation's history. Lets add the song, the angevins, the abbasids, the marathas, and the chagathayids while we're at it.

Mewtarthio
Jun 15, 2007, 10:48 PM
So what will there adjective descriptor be? Holy Roman? :eek: or perhaps just Holy :lol:

This is getting rather aggrivating. Now we've got the "American Empire" against the "Native American Empire" and the "Roman Empire" next to the "Holy Roman Empire"! What next? The "Canadian Empire" and the "French Canadian Empire"?

ohcrapitsnico
Jun 15, 2007, 10:49 PM
This is getting rather aggrivating. Now we've got the "American Empire" against the "Native American Empire" and the "Roman Empire" next to the "Holy Roman Empire"! What next? The "Canadian Empire" and the "French Canadian Empire"?

I never realized that, this makes it even more ridiculous, maybe Firaxis will change the byzantines to the eastern romans just for good measure.:)

NYHunter
Jun 15, 2007, 10:53 PM
I think both Charlemagne and the HRE deserve to be in the game because of their importance. However, Marla Singer has a good point.

To solve this problem I would have them rename the civ The Frankish Empire. I am not sure if I was taught right, but in my American high school class I was taught that Charlemagnes empire was Frankish and that it was eventually divided ito the Western Frankish Kingdom, The Central Frankish Kingdom and The Eastern Frankish Kingdom. I honestly don't believe they called themselves that, but that is what I was taught. I actually have a fairly modern (I am only 18) textbook that I never returned so I will check after I post to find more information.

But honestly it's not as if what this game choses to do has any actual reflection on history. I mean we are playing a game where the Egyptians can build the Great Wall and China can build the Pyramids and The Aztecs can crush the Spanish.

Vrenir
Jun 15, 2007, 11:37 PM
A big part of this problem comes from taking a game that mostly consists of ethnicly-centered empires and adding in purely political entities among them.

America is mostly English (at least under Washington), and the only reasons that I can see for it being in the game are 1) Civ is made in America and 2) You can't have 20th century scenarios without it. Byzantium, while my personal favorite, is also a political nation essentially either Roman or Greek. If they added Constantine, should he be Roman? Who knows. The Holy Roman Empire is another example of the same thing. It's a nation that was tied not to a group of people (French or German) as much as it was tied to a title given by the Vatican. Charlamagne got the title first, so he's considered the founder, whether or not he really had anything to do with the ethnic group that later came to dominate the political organization that later developed from his own. The same could be said of the Habsburgs who were part Spanish, part Austrian/German. Was the Holy Roman Empire Austrian, German, Spanish, or Frankish? The truth is that it was a confederation and not ethnically tied; it depended on who had the title.

So, I'm going to side with the people that say Charlamagne works. I'd rather not have another purely political organization, since they're harder to place in the game, and Charlamagne may not have been the best choice for it (one the Habsburgs might have been better), but I think that Firaxis' interpretation of the Holy Roman Empire is valid. They based it on the title, the only really unifying aspect of the political states and leaders under that banner, and Charlamagne had the title (or is at least popularly believed to have had the title, even if it technically wasn't the identical wording).

Thrallia
Jun 16, 2007, 12:53 AM
At least he was a ruler. Joan of Arc just inspired some people. She didn't even have a career after that. I think she was burned to death about 2 years after, wasn't she? I mean she is a very famous French person, but that's about it. I have no problem with military leaders like Hannibal being added, but she never even commanded troops from my knowledge.


Actually, she led the French troops from the Battle of Orleans until she was captured by the British and burned at the stake as a heretic...perhaps she was successful mostly due to her inspiring people, but she did suit up and lead the French armies in battle as well, and before she started doing that, the French had pretty much lost every single battle in that era of the Hundred Years War...they were on their way to being conquered when she showed up.


The Holy Roman Empire was German.

Its full name was "Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicæ" (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation), which means Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

Well, so what ? Charlemagne is considered as a French ruler too. So pick your choice. You can put it as ruler of both civilizations if you want.

The Carolingian Empire and the Holy Roman Empire are both different. One is an offshoot of the other. Actually, following up the dynasties of French Kings, you'll realize that actually it makes more sense to consider the Carolingian Empire as being the French Kingdom since the French crown is directly inherited from the Frankish crown. Would you tell me that Franks aren't part of French History either now ?

Actually, its name was "Sacrum Romanum Imperium" until the 1500s, then the german part was added on...possibly because at that point the HRE had lost most of its non-germanic territories. Charlemagne was crowned by Pope Leo III as the Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, and the HRE was part of his empire.

Thus, he was undisputably one of the rulers, indeed, the founder, of the HRE.
Therefore, it is perfectly logical for him to be a leader for the HRE in Civ4.
Q.E.D.

(hm...that'll teach me to try to argue something while working on Discrete Mathematics homework)

Ball Lightning
Jun 16, 2007, 12:57 AM
I'm not really to fussed, it would be better for historical reason, but i really care about the experience of playing different leaders.

taillesskangaru
Jun 16, 2007, 01:59 AM
I'm not really to fussed, it would be better for historical reason, but i really care about the experience of playing different leaders.

You should. Having HRE in the game means there's one less spot for other, better candidates.

thadian
Jun 16, 2007, 02:09 AM
the pretext of ghandi as an india leader creates a similar one for Martin Luther King Jr. to be an american leader. Would you be happy if the leader was instead Constantine? If so, then your charle would not be mentioned at all, you would have no chance to explain your view, (i personally) would have not known the french-german prehistory of the HRE, would that make you happy?

Even the celts, who had no real leader. Brennus was influental, but the Senonas were not an influental tribe. Boadeccia was not very influental more than any other celt warrior queen until she and her troops mass suicided to protest defeat.

I understand that the audiacity of sacking rome, and being brave enough to lead women and druids to fight rome were heroic of them, but they werent the "big kings".

What about that Attilla isnt in it? Would you be angry if he were called "Germanian" instead of "Hungarian"? I mean, at this time, Hungary did not exist, and The Hun were just a collective of ruthless nomad tribes,

TheLastOne36
Jun 16, 2007, 06:30 AM
Except there are much better American leaders then Martin Luther King Jr. Washington, Lincoln, to name a few.

Gaius Octavius
Jun 16, 2007, 07:06 AM
Not to mention Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Ronald Reagan, Woodrow Wilson and plenty of others...

The problem I have with issues like the HRE, although I'm fine with that particular civ, is that it starts us on a slippery slope. This game already suffers from a lot of historical fallacies that frustrate me to no end. Praetorians as the Roman UU, Navy SEALs as the American one, and a mounted Immortal for the Persians. Not to mention mistakes in the Civilopedia as well as politically-biased statements (read the entry on Liberalism lately?) and PC names ("Native" Americans... they might as well call "America" the "invading" Americans).

I've always been one who prefers historical realism (probably why I think Marla's world map for Civ 3 is still one of the best ever made; if only Civ 4 took that as a cue...) While I understand that parts of history always have to be sacrificed for the purpose of gameplay, there comes a point when you go too far. They have not reached that point just yet, but we are teetering on the precipice.

TheLastOne36
Jun 16, 2007, 07:10 AM
Andrew Jackson

Isn't that they guy who took bullets to the chest?

Gaius Octavius
Jun 16, 2007, 07:12 AM
Well, a lot of generals did. Washington had two horses shot out from under him and found several bullet holes in his jacket after a battle, but he was unscathed. Jackson is best remembered for his role in the War of 1812 at the battle of New Orleans, and his presidency is remembered as inaugurating a new era of democracy in the U.S. (Appropriately called Jacksonian Democracy.)

TheLastOne36
Jun 16, 2007, 07:27 AM
yah he faught in duels right?

On topic: i got a bit more angry against Charlemagne on Wikipedia and it seems that he's possible the worst choice possible for HRE.

NYHunter
Jun 16, 2007, 07:35 AM
Not everyone cares about the historical accuracy of the game. Not everyone is a history buff. Some people wouldn't care if there were no preset civs and leaders and instead you customized your own leader and civs similar to how you create your own character for other games.

That doesn't describe me personally but there are plenty of people who have expressed that. So why should they be fussed about it?


You should. Having HRE in the game means there's one less spot for other, better candidates.

Gaius Octavius
Jun 16, 2007, 07:40 AM
Not everyone cares about the historical accuracy of the game. Not everyone is a history buff. Some people wouldn't care if there were no preset civs and leaders and instead you customized your own leader and civs similar to how you create your own character for other games.

That doesn't describe me personally but there are plenty of people who have expressed that.

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean... personally, I think all the people who feel that way should find another game to play. You can't have Civilization without history, even if half the fun is in recreating it your own way. It still has to be grounded in reality, or else you might as well make the American UU the Keshik and the Roman UU the Kamikaze.

Aussie_Lurker
Jun 16, 2007, 07:41 AM
Good to see the pointless debates re:Civilization continue to thrive ;). At days end its all about the recognition factor. Most ordinary gamers couldn't name a single actual ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, but everyone knows who Charlemagne is, & his connection to the HRE. Same with Julius Caeser & the Original Roman Empire, or Hannibal & Carthage. It really is a non-starter as issues go. In the original Civ2, you could play Carthage as the leader Dido, but she only existed as a Character in a Roman Play about the 'cause' of the rift between Rome & Carthage-long after Carthage was consigned to the dustbin of history. Seriously, guys, get over it!

Aussie_Lurker.

Gaius Octavius
Jun 16, 2007, 07:42 AM
I agree with Aussie. The HRE is in, and it may not be the best choice, but it's not a bad one either. On to more interesting debates: what will Charlemagne's traits be, and what will the UU and UB be? :mischief:

TheLastOne36
Jun 16, 2007, 07:43 AM
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean... personally, I think all the people who feel that way should find another game to play. You can't have Civilization without history, even if half the fun is in recreating it your own way. It still has to be grounded in reality, or else you might as well make the American UU the Keshik and the Roman UU the Kamikaze.

100% agreed. This game is supposed to be Educational to. Ur supposed to learn about civilizations, Leaders and history. If you don't want to be historically accurate then you shouldn't play this game.

JujuLautre
Jun 16, 2007, 07:55 AM
If you don't want to be historically accurate then you shouldn't play this game.

I don't at all see why. I enjoy the game fo its mechanisms and also for its cultural flavors. I dont' see at all the game as being educational at first, only as being a game that I enjoy.

As for the debate, I must say I'm also french, but having Charlemagne/HRE does not bother me at all. Perhaps I would have liked other Civ, that is true, but not more. And as Gaius Octavius said, perhaps we would better guess about traits/UU/UB ;)

NYHunter
Jun 16, 2007, 08:06 AM
Well, I wasn't refering exclusively to the people who particularly want those type of things but I'll give example: myself. I know NOTHING about Viking history so the whole debate over who should be the leader for the Vikings never concerns me. It's not that I want Civilization to lose the historical feel, it's that I don't know the history to begin with to actually care if the wrong leader is chosen. And I think you really have to look at a discussion where you know nothing about the history to fully understand why some people don't care. I mean as an American I would be outrage if our leader was not the right one and go on a rampage. But, would someone who knows nothing about American history care? They would most likely think: Boy, this guy is making a big deal about absolutely nothing.

That was more my point. It's not that people push for the game to purposely be historically inaccurate. It's that they don't really care either way. Inaccurate or accurate they will still play because it doesn't bother them. There are even people who are educated on history who don't care. Simply because they chose not to make a big deal out of what a game choses to do.

But yea, I agree about the people who actually push for alllowing overly inaccurate things, they should find a new game.

Anyway, I hope that wasn't too off-topic for the mods, considering how it relates to why some people are upset about Charlemagne /HRE and others are not. :)

Vertico
Jun 16, 2007, 08:06 AM
I don't at all see why. I enjoy the game fo its mechanisms and also for its cultural flavors. I dont' see at all the game as being educational at first, only as being a game that I enjoy.


Maybe you're too old. I remember when I started playing Civ1. I was still at school and this game makes me to interest in history and history of civilisations.
How many young player play civ4? I think not less than civ1 and for them, game should be as correct as possible.

NYHunter
Jun 16, 2007, 08:10 AM
Well, this is the perfect example of what I was talking about. Juju is French but choses not get bothered by this very controversial choice of having Charlemgne as leader of HRE, not to mention including the HRE itself is controversial. It's not wrong to not be bothered. There is no rule that says you have to be upset. And that is what my point to the person who said someone should be fussed up about it was. Some people enjoy life. Don't tell them they should be upset about something they aren't upset about in a game that has no reflection on what actually happened in history.

I don't at all see why. I enjoy the game fo its mechanisms and also for its cultural flavors. I dont' see at all the game as being educational at first, only as being a game that I enjoy.

As for the debate, I must say I'm also french, but having Charlemagne/HRE does not bother me at all. Perhaps I would have liked other Civ, that is true, but not more. And as Gaius Octavius said, perhaps we would better guess about traits/UU/UB ;)

NYHunter
Jun 16, 2007, 08:35 AM
Yea, but remember what Sid Meier said about Civilization. To paraphrase: it's a very basic view of history, a 10 year old's view of history.

That is why the game's features are implemented in very simple ways and historical accuracy is minimum. To complain about deep historical errors has no value because if the game changed that view it would not be Civilization anymore. It woud be a different game. Maybe some history buffs will like that game more than Civilization, but it would be a different game.

And yes, this is pretty much what dh epic said in another thread a short while ago.

100% agreed. This game is supposed to be Educational to. Ur supposed to learn about civilizations, Leaders and history. If you don't want to be historically accurate then you shouldn't play this game.

Gaius Octavius
Jun 16, 2007, 08:40 AM
DEEP HISTORICAL ERRORS?! Good grief...

It doesn't bother me when espionage is highly simplified, or if the U.N. can only vote on certain civics, but when they name the Roman UU the Praetorian or give the Persians a mounted Immortal when they were actually foot soldiers, these are small but just plain stupid things to do. It makes it look like the game was designed by someone with a 10-year-old's conception of history.

TheLastOne36
Jun 16, 2007, 08:42 AM
DEEP HISTORICAL ERRORS?! Good grief...

It doesn't bother me when espionage is highly simplified, or if the U.N. can only vote on certain civics, but when they name the Roman UU the Praetorian or give the Persians a mounted Immortal when they were actually foot soldiers, these are small but just plain stupid things to do. It makes it look like the game was designed by someone with a 10-year-old's conception of history.

For all you know Sid Mier is 10 years old. :eek:

Lone Wolf
Jun 16, 2007, 08:47 AM
Who is Sid Mier? ;)

Aussie_Lurker
Jun 16, 2007, 08:55 AM
I won't lie that calling the Roman UU a Praetorian is silly, given that the name only referred to the elite guard of the Emporer (if I am wrong on that, please correct me). The reason its silly is that Legions would be both more accurate & just as easily recognisable.
As for the Immortal thing, I believe that historically there were two types of Persian Immortals. The Achaemenid Immortals were Swordsmen/Archers wheras the Zhayedan were the mounted variety. The only problem with Civ4's choice is that the latter is associated with the later Sassanid Empire, wheras the original Immortals are related with earlier Persian leaders such as Xerxes & Darius. In the end it was probably a game-balance issue. There were already plenty of Sowrdsmen replacements, wheras there were no Mounted Archer replacements.

Aussie_Lurker.

Aussie_Lurker
Jun 16, 2007, 09:00 AM
The following info is from Wikipedia. It shows that Civ's use of the term Praetorian is not completely inaccurate, but Legion would have sufficed just as well all the same. Perhaps the Roman UU could be the 'Italian Army'-special ability is that, if a car backfires in their vicinity, half the unit's strength disappears ;) :p.


The term "Praetorian" came from the tent of the commanding general or praetor of a Roman army in the field—the praetorium. It was a habit of many Roman generals to choose from the ranks a private force of soldiers to act as bodyguards of the tent or the person. They consisted of both infantry and cavalry. In time, this cohort came to be known as the cohors praetoria, and various notable figures possessed one, including Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and Augustus (Octavian). As Caesar discovered with the Legio X Equestris, a powerful unit more dangerous than its fellow legions was desirable in the field. When Augustus became the first ruler of the Roman Empire in 27 BC, he decided such a formation was useful not only in war but also in politics. Thus, from the ranks of the legions throughout the provinces, Augustus recruited the Praetorian Guard. The Praetorian Guard were the only body of armed soldiers permitted south of the Rubicon, a river which marked the northern boundary of Italy.

NYHunter
Jun 16, 2007, 09:01 AM
I am sure they are aware of these inaccuracies, they probably have a few historical advisors or researchers. And I agree with you. I am not sure why they would call the Roman's UU Praetorian, I mean really, it makes no sense. Immortals as mounted, well they were foot soldiers but I guess it must have had something to do with game balance. Again, I am not saying I disagree. These are inaccuracies. And you have to wonder what lead to these tiny decisions.

DEEP HISTORICAL ERRORS?! Good grief...

It doesn't bother me when espionage is highly simplified, or if the U.N. can only vote on certain civics, but when they name the Roman UU the Praetorian or give the Persians a mounted Immortal when they were actually foot soldiers, these are small but just plain stupid things to do. It makes it look like the game was designed by someone with a 10-year-old's conception of history.

Gaius Octavius
Jun 16, 2007, 09:04 AM
Wikipedia is not the best source for issues like this... ;)

Yeah, the Praetorian Cohort was an attachment to Legions, but that is like making the U.S. Navy SEAL a UU instead of the Marines or American GI. It's an extremely small group of people, never seeing the kind of huge numbers the regular army did. Honestly, if they'd named the Roman UU the miles (Latin for soldier) that would have been accurate, but thousands of people would call in wonder how many "miles" it is to the next city. :crazyeye:

Legionary is the only good option.

JujuLautre
Jun 16, 2007, 09:24 AM
Maybe you're too old. I remember when I started playing Civ1. I was still at school and this game makes me to interest in history and history of civilisations.
How many young player play civ4? I think not less than civ1 and for them, game should be as correct as possible.

Actually I'm 24, I don't consider myself as old. And in any case, I started playing Civ when I was 16, and enjoyed the game mainly or the same reason I'm enjoying CivIV now ;)

Well, this is the perfect example of what I was talking about. Juju is French but choses not get bothered by this very controversial choice of having Charlemgne as leader of HRE, not to mention including the HRE itself is controversial.

Thanks NYHunter. Actually I would have prefered other Civs I think, but I'm fine by the way it is. They decided to include HRE (which is debatable), and for this I'm happy they chose Charlemagne, considering the way they choose the leaders. We should not forget we are playing a game where Julius Ceasar is still alive after more than 6000 years some times :)

And I was just thinking, if people complain about Charlemagne being the leader of HRE, why don't they complain about the new feature in BTS allowing queen Boudica ruling the Japanese empire and its mighty Samurais? :crazyeye:

Just kidding, just kidding :D

Psyringe
Jun 16, 2007, 10:30 AM
Charles the Great as the leader of the HRE is certainly a stretch. True, he was crowned western Roman emperor, so the decision isn't totally unfounded either. But at that time "Roman Emperor" was just a title issued by the Pope tho whomever pledged to protect the Papacy, and had enough power to actually do so should the need arise. There simply was no western Roman empire around any more.

It's difficult to pinpoint the actual start of the HRE. Dates in the literature vary from 800 (Charles the Great being crowned Roman emperor) to 843 (treaty of Verdun) to 962 (Otto the Great becoming first German emperor) to the 11th century (when the empire officially adopted the name "Roman Empire") to the 13th century (when the name "*Holy* Roman Empire" was created).

In any case, I can understand the protest of French civvers because Charles is clearly the ancestor of France as well as Germany, while the HRE can only be seen as a predecessor of Germany (and, more often than not, an enemy of France). Seen under this light, choosing the father of two formerly extensively rivaling countries to represent only one of them can certainly be seen as a poor decision. Especially because good alternatives would have been there (Barbarossa or Otto).

I think Firaxis simply wanted to include both Charles (whose inclusion has been a long-term wish of many civvers, and can certainly be justified because of his historical importance) and the HRE (which has become increasingly popular due to games like Medieval or Europa Universalis), and thought it wouldn't be too far-fetched to combine them.

Öjevind Lång
Jun 16, 2007, 11:22 AM
It'll help pad the bed of cash they're sleeping on.

Look, I agree it's historically inaccurate. But people LOVE Charlemagne, and will gladly embrace it.

Most don't complain about Julius Caesar running the "Roman Empire", why would there be a lot of complaints about this?

The Roman Empire existed long before it had Emperors.

Gaius Octavius
Jun 16, 2007, 11:26 AM
It was the Roman Republic then. I've raised this issue many times--the Civilopedia incorrectly identifies Julius as the "First Roman Emperor." That's blatantly false; he was not the first emperor, Augustus was.

Rome existed long before the emperors. The Roman Empire did not. That's why I've always felt we need a leader from earlier Republican Rome, like Sulla, the Gracchi, or even Lucius Junius Brutus.

Sansevero
Jun 16, 2007, 12:26 PM
I'm sure he knows all that. I believe he was expressing the point of view that Rome was de facto an empire before the reign of Augustus.

Breunor
Jun 16, 2007, 08:19 PM
Where's the legitimacy of this ? The Carolingian Empire has been dismantled by the Treaty of Verdun ! I'm sorry but I'm trying to be as open-minded as possible, it just doesn't make sense. The HRE is and has always been an offshoot of the Carolingian Empire.

And Charlemagne doesn't come out of nowhere, he's a Frankish King from the Carolingian dynasty, founded by Charles Martel in 714. Charles Martel being famous for having halted the Umayyad invasions of Europe during the Arab Expansion Era.

It's just totally silly to consider Charlemagne as the founder of the HRE. I have simply never read that anywhere in the past.

Marla,

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you have never seen Charlemagne considered the founder of the HRE, you may want to expand your reading. If you want, I can give you at least 15 references to it.

Ok, let me find a few on the Internet for you:

Ok, here is Wikipedia, nota great source, but with some legitimacy:

It originated with the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day, AD 800, and lasted until the abdication of Emperor Francis II in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars. After the partition of the Frankish Empire by the Treaty of Verdun in 843, the de facto sovereignty of the Emperors became confined first to the central and later (and for most of the Empire's subsequent history) to the eastern portion of the former Frankish dominions.

Here is an article called 'Charlemagne, King of the Holy Roman Empire'
http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96apr/Charlemagne.html

Here is the quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica, a rather good source:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106284/Holy-Roman-Empire

Written Sources: The Order of Rome , from the Empires, Rise and Fall series, Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire, by John Monroe

The Encycopedia of the Middle Ages, Norman Canter editor, page 229, under Holy Roman empire: 'the Holy Roman Empire officially lasted for just over 1000 years -- from 800 to 1806 .....' It goes on to talk about Charlemagne's role.


Where is the logic? I have two answers. The first is the one I said above. You are entitled to your opinion about when the HRE 'started', Firaxis took a common view of history. I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying its a legitimate view. Not everyone is going to agree with your view of history, and if a game designer looks at legitimate sources like the Britanncia and these others they shouldn't be castigated. Not everyone agrees with my view of history either, but many many books DO SAY Charlemagne founded the HRE.

The reason this is taken as the 'offical' date is that the HRE was a complex quasi-alliance between Pope and King (Charlemagne), the two real powers in the West. Leo III's coronation of Charlemagne was symbolic of this. It was a blow to the still powerful Byzantine Emperor. Theoretically, the Papacy, despite its prestige, was subject to Byzantine rule. The coronation of Charlemagne meant that Leo III was now protected by Charelemagne's army, and that Leo III sanctioned Charlemagne's rule, making it as important as the 'real' Roman empire in Byzantium. The papal agreement is what theoretically made it Holy.

As many of us have said, it wasn't called the HRE until much later. So when it actually started is always going to be subject to interpretation.

Breunor

ParkCungHee
Jun 16, 2007, 08:53 PM
The French Kingdom is as much the heir of the Carolingian Empire as is the Holy Roman Empire.

I'm sorry but I'm French, and I can tell you that it does matter for me to see all of a sudden Charlemagne being removed from the History of my country. At least Hannibal was from Carthages and Gandhi was from India. The same would be true with Joan of Arch being from France.

Charlemagne IS NOT from the Holy roman empire. He's a FRANKISH KING.

Would you consider Queen Victoria as Australian ? Would you consider George II of England as American ? I'm sorry but this does not make sense at all !
This isn't just an insult to the French, its an insult to Germany as well. Are we supposed to believe the Holy Roman Empire constituted a seperate civilization? That German Civilization didn't begin until the 1800s, with the fall of "holy roman" civilization?
I don't think anyone will be happy with this outcome.

Vlade Divac
Jun 16, 2007, 09:00 PM
This isn't just an insult to the French, its an insult to Germany as well. Are we supposed to believe the Holy Roman Empire constituted a seperate civilization? That German Civilization didn't begin until the 1800s, with the fall of "holy roman" civilization?
I don't think anyone will be happy with this outcome.

:agree: I will never forgive Firaxis for this.

ParkCungHee
Jun 16, 2007, 09:20 PM
So I guess I'll have to inform people that Goethe is not an Icon of German Kultur, because he was a...er...holy romanian?

NYHunter
Jun 16, 2007, 10:04 PM
The thing is that Charlemagne was ruler of the Franks. Yes a portion of the Frankish Kingdoms eventually became a part of The Holy Roman Empire but Charlemagne never actually ruled it at all.

However, Firaxis probably decided that since Charlemagne's actions played an important part in the formation of the HRE and the two are often linked that it would be an easy way to a kill two birds with one stone.

Rusty Edge
Jun 16, 2007, 10:23 PM
Not to mention Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Ronald Reagan, Woodrow Wilson and plenty of others...

The problem I have with issues like the HRE, although I'm fine with that particular civ, is that it starts us on a slippery slope. This game already suffers from a lot of historical fallacies that frustrate me to no end. Praetorians as the Roman UU, Navy SEALs as the American one, and a mounted Immortal for the Persians. Not to mention mistakes in the Civilopedia as well as politically-biased statements (read the entry on Liberalism lately?) and PC names ("Native" Americans... they might as well call "America" the "invading" Americans).

I've always been one who prefers historical realism (probably why I think Marla's world map for Civ 3 is still one of the best ever made; if only Civ 4 took that as a cue...) While I understand that parts of history always have to be sacrificed for the purpose of gameplay, there comes a point when you go too far. They have not reached that point just yet, but we are teetering on the precipice.


While I the reserve the right to debate the American leaders (Washington vs Wilson, for example ), at a later date ....

:agree:

The quick fix would be to rename , but why didn't they manage to rename the Praetorians to legions or cohorts or something in a patch? It couldn't be that hard, so they must not be inclined to those kinds of corrections.

ds61514
Jun 16, 2007, 10:29 PM
I'm sorry but I'm French, and I can tell you that it does matter for me to see all of a sudden Charlemagne being removed from the History of my country. At least Hannibal was from Carthages and Gandhi was from India. The same would be true with Joan of Arch being from France.

Well we can all blame this on Firaxis confusing (or not caring about the differences between) nation with civilization/ethnicity. Best example from the top of my head is Kublai Khan, who was both Great Khan of the Mongols and Emperor of Zhongguo, which is represented in Civ4 as the Chinese Empire. In this particular case, they went with Khan's ethnicity (and popular perception) as the deciding factor.

PimpyMicPimp
Jun 17, 2007, 12:51 AM
Civ isn't as historical as we might like to think. Launching an inter-planatary space vessal in the 1500's kind of ruins that illusion.

danieldaniel
Jun 17, 2007, 01:21 AM
Maybe we're lucky and they include Charles I as a new spanish leader. Then it shouldn't be difficult to rename him to Charles V and put him in the HRE, and then turn Charlemagne into France's third leader. ;)

ParkCungHee
Jun 17, 2007, 01:29 AM
Eh, I'm modding him into Casimir III in my game.

Jerrymander
Jun 17, 2007, 02:46 AM
Oh shut up. You guys are all nerds.

Especially the original poster. :)

qwert
Jun 17, 2007, 03:07 AM
You've been taught wrong then. He was crowned Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, not just Emperor of the West. The Roman Catholic Church was attempting to revive the Roman Empire, thus why Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of Rome, essentially. However, his son didn't seem to understand this importance, as he was willing to split up Charlemagne's 'Western Roman Empire' into Frankish and Germanic states...the Germanic state kept most of northern Italy, thus why it became the Holy Roman Empire.

I understand completely that France is as much an offshoot of Charlemagne's empire as the HRE is...however Germany owes more to Charlemagne's unification than France does...without the unification of all the Germanic tribes into some semblence of a country, then its likely one of two things would have occurred, 1) the Dark ages would have lasted much longer due to the proliferation of 'barbarian' tribes in Germany, or 2) Khan wouldn't have been able to be stopped in Poland and would have taken over a much larger chunk of Europe.

As for the number of leaders France and Germany have...that's the number of leaders most civs seem to have...AFAIK only England, Russia and America will have 3 leaders in the next expansion. I would prefer to have France and the HRE and take out Germany, with Frederick and Charlemagne being the rulers of the HRE...since Germany is a very recent country. I'm not saying that Charlemagne doesn't belong to French history, I'm saying that perhaps you should consider the fact that the original HRE was begun with Charlemagne and his son, and included France...it wasn't until his grandsons that France was made separate from the HRE.

Please, don´t take Bismark away.

Only a curiosity: did nobody realize that there is no leader for germany.
Both Federic and Bismark were leaders of Prusia

Öjevind Lång
Jun 17, 2007, 03:33 AM
It was the Roman Republic then. I've raised this issue many times--the Civilopedia incorrectly identifies Julius as the "First Roman Emperor." That's blatantly false; he was not the first emperor, Augustus was.

Rome existed long before the emperors. The Roman Empire did not. That's why I've always felt we need a leader from earlier Republican Rome, like Sulla, the Gracchi, or even Lucius Junius Brutus.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The term "Imperium Romanorum" does not mean "The Roman Realm ruled by a Monarch (Emperor)" but simply "Roman Rule", that is to say, "the Realm of the Romans" or "the Government/State of the Romans". It was in use long before Augustus. The word "imperator" (meaning "leader, master, ruler") for someone who ruled the Roman Empire alone was first awarded to Augustus and became one of the many titles of the Roman Caesars, and much later, it derived the meaning of "emperor" in various language such as the French ("empereur"), the English ("emperor") and so on. But it did *not* have inevitable royal connotations to the Romans, at least not until rather later than the time of Augustus. When the Romans spoke of the Emperor, be it Augustus or Nero or Septimius Severus or Constantine the Great, they generally called him "Caesar". "Render unto Caesar that which belongs unto Caesar", and so on. In fact, the name Caesar evolved into a title too, and was the origin of the German "Kaiser" and the Russian "Tsar".

The fact that "Imperium Romanorum" could mean both "the Rule of the Romans" and "the Rule over the Romans", "the Roman government", was useful to the Caesars and led to the modern meaning of the word "empire".

It might be added that though Wikipedia is wrong in calling Julius Caesar "the first Roman Emperor", the Roman historian Suetonius (2nd Century A. D.) wrote a book called "Vitae Caesarum" ("The Lives of the Caesars"), which deals with Caesar and the first eleven Emperors. (The English translation published by Penguin is called "The Twelve Caesars".) Augustus claimed to be "the First Senator" ("princeps senatus") of the Roman Empire as a successor to Julius Caesar, who had adopted him and given him his name; being the First Senator also meant that you were the First Citizen. (And the word "princeps" also acquired royal connotations; it is the origin of the modern words "prince/prins/Printz/principe" et cetera.) Since all Emperors until the very end officially claimed to hold their position as inheritors of Julius Caesar, they all took care to assume Caesar as one of their names, if they did not already wear it because they were the son of the previous Caesar or adopted by him. For example, Tiberius, the second Emperor (or Caesar, to use the term employed by his subjects about him and all his successors), was officially called Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus; before he was adopted by his predecessor and stepfather Augustus, his name was Tiberius Claudius Nero.

It would make as much sense to say that the Roman word "imperator" meant "emperor" as to say that the modern word "leader" means "king". In fact, Augustus and his successors presided over an elaborate charade to the effect that they were not royalty but simply ruled Rome as successors to the great Julius Caesar. Of course, that was not true, but to formally declare oneself King (Latin "rex") would have meant courting suicide. Julius Caesar was murdered because he was suspected of planning to proclaim himself king. Inevitably, pretty soon everyone knew that they *did* have a monarchic ruler, but it was wisest to pretend not to know it...

Literally, "res publica" meant "public matter, public thing", that is to say, "the state". The word said nothing about the nature of government. The modern meaning of "republic/Republik/repubblica" and so on is very late and derived from the French "république". That the meaning "polity without a monarch" is very late can be seen, for example, from the fact that Poland, which was ruled by Kings, was officially called "the Polish Republic". The Latin word for "democracy" or "republic", that is to say, a state without a monarch, was simply "populus" ("people"). Populus Romanus = the Roman People (State). But Augustus claimed that he simply led the "Populus Romanus". He wasn't a king, all he had done was to unwillingly, in view of the evil and chaotic times, assume a lot of power as the First Citizen, so the populus was still supreme. He just happened to preside over them. See?

Öjevind Lång
Jun 17, 2007, 03:45 AM
Please, don´t take Bismark away.

Only a curiosity: did nobody realize that there is no leader for germany.
Both Federic and Bismark were leaders of Prusia

Bismarck became Chancellor of Germany after its creation in 1870.

uppi
Jun 17, 2007, 04:04 AM
Please, don´t take Bismark away.

Only a curiosity: did nobody realize that there is no leader for germany.
Both Federic and Bismark were leaders of Prusia

At first Bismarck was only the leader of Prussia, but after he had united all German states besides Austria in 1871 he was the leader of Germany.

Grohan
Jun 17, 2007, 04:26 AM
But Joan was hot, and that was what was important. :love:

Especially in modern age. :love:

IMO Charlemagne should be the leader of France and whole HRE should be removed. Poland, Ethiopia or Polynesia could fill its place as 10th civ. But I guess that is not going to happen... :sad:

TheLastOne36
Jun 17, 2007, 04:27 AM
At first Bismarck was only the leader of Prussia, but after he had united all German states besides Austria in 1871 he was the leader of Germany.

Does it matter? Germany is germany, Prussia is German, HRE is German, Austria is German Switzerland and Belgium are slightly German and Luxembourg is German.

qwert
Jun 17, 2007, 04:31 AM
Oops, yes you are rigth, i forgot that Bismark became chancelor of germany.
AN Idea: now that the Holy Roman Empire is include they could include also Charles V as one leader for this Civ.

uppi
Jun 17, 2007, 04:49 AM
Does it matter? Germany is germany, Prussia is German, HRE is German, Austria is German Switzerland and Belgium are slightly German and Luxembourg is German.

Depends on how you define "German"

TheLastOne36
Jun 17, 2007, 04:53 AM
talking bout the ethnic group.

Stilgar08
Jun 17, 2007, 06:49 AM
Does it matter? Germany is germany, Prussia is German, HRE is German, Austria is German Switzerland and Belgium are slightly German and Luxembourg is German.
Surely Belgium people love reading this! Same with Luxembourg. Germany is in the middle of Europe and therefore was under many influences and spread a lot of influences and changing empires were common... What's the ranting all about? I read somewhere else you gonna mod Charlemagne out so that's fine, isn't it?

Gaius Octavius
Jun 17, 2007, 07:52 AM
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The term "Imperium Romanorum" does not mean "The Roman Realm ruled by a Monarch (Emperor)" but simply "Roman Rule", that is to say, "the Realm of the Romans" or "the Government/State of the Romans". It was in use long before Augustus. The word "imperator" (meaning "leader, master, ruler") for someone who ruled the Roman Empire alone was first awarded to Augustus and became one of the many titles of the Roman Caesars, and much later, it derived the meaning of "emperor" in various language such as the French ("empereur"), the English ("emperor") and so on. But it did *not* have inevitable royal connotations to the Romans, at least not until rather later than the time of Augustus. When the Romans spoke of the Emperor, be it Augustus or Nero or Septimius Severus or Constantine the Great, they generally called him "Caesar". "Render unto Caesar that which belongs unto Caesar", and so on. In fact, the name Caesar evolved into a title too, and was the origin of the German "Kaiser" and the Russian "Tsar".

The fact that "Imperium Romanorum" could mean both "the Rule of the Romans" and "the Rule over the Romans", "the Roman government", was useful to the Caesars and led to the modern meaning of the word "empire".

It might be added that though Wikipedia is wrong in calling Julius Caesar "the first Roman Emperor", the Roman historian Suetonius (2nd Century A. D.) wrote a book called "Vitae Caesarum" ("The Lives of the Caesars"), which deals with Caesar and the first eleven Emperors. (The English translation published by Penguin is called "The Twelve Caesars".) Augustus claimed to be "the First Senator" ("princeps senatus") of the Roman Empire as a successor to Julius Caesar, who had adopted him and given him his name; being the First Senator also meant that you were the First Citizen. (And the word "princeps" also acquired royal connotations; it is the origin of the modern words "prince/prins/Printz/principe" et cetera.) Since all Emperors until the very end officially claimed to hold their position as inheritors of Julius Caesar, they all took care to assume Caesar as one of their names, if they did not already wear it because they were the son of the previous Caesar or adopted by him. For example, Tiberius, the second Emperor (or Caesar, to use the term employed by his subjects about him and all his successors), was officially called Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus; before he was adopted by his predecessor and stepfather Augustus, his name was Tiberius Claudius Nero.

It would make as much sense to say that the Roman word "imperator" meant "emperor" as to say that the modern word "leader" means "king". In fact, Augustus and his successors presided over an elaborate charade to the effect that they were not royalty but simply ruled Rome as successors to the great Julius Caesar. Of course, that was not true, but to formally declare oneself King (Latin "rex") would have meant courting suicide. Julius Caesar was murdered because he was suspected of planning to proclaim himself king. Inevitably, pretty soon everyone knew that they *did* have a monarchic ruler, but it was wisest to pretend not to know it...

Literally, "res publica" meant "public matter, public thing", that is to say, "the state". The word said nothing about the nature of government. The modern meaning of "republic/Republik/repubblica" and so on is very late and derived from the French "république". That the meaning "polity without a monarch" is very late can be seen, for example, from the fact that Poland, which was ruled by Kings, was officially called "the Polish Republic". The Latin word for "democracy" or "republic", that is to say, a state without a monarch, was simply "populus" ("people"). Populus Romanus = the Roman People (State). But Augustus claimed that he simply led the "Populus Romanus". He wasn't a king, all he had done was to unwillingly, in view of the evil and chaotic times, assume a lot of power as the First Citizen, so the populus was still supreme. He just happened to preside over them. See?

That you for that very long post. As a student of ancient Mediterranean history, with an emphasis in Roman history, I find that I often need to be corrected by more informed people on the internet.

:sarcasm:

Sorry, I don't mean to be mean there. I agree with everything you said. :D

At any rate, my point was that the name Roman Empire, as it is used today, is often a construct, much in the same way the phrase Byzantine Empire is. (There is a very long debate between Titus001 and myself on this issue.) We divide Rome into two eras, not counting the Monarchy: the Republic and Empire. The Romans themselves did not see it in such stark terms, particularly in Augustus' day. (There was a recognition that things had changed, though, but that had been going on for 30 years.) Having Julius as the leader of the Roman Empire therefore seems a bit anachronistic to modern eyes. Maybe we should change the name to SPQR.

You are exactly right in what you said about Augustus, et al, but that only strengthens my point. Of course a new Roman state did not suddenly come into existence with Augustus; he styled himself as a protector and preserver of the old ways, even as he fundamentally changed the way the state would be run. The Senate still existed (and continued to exist up until the fall of Rome) but it would slowly lose its power.

My main beef with the Julius issue is that they've labeled him as the "First Roman Emperor" (in the Civilopedia, not Wikipedia.) This is patently false. Ask anyone with a knowledge of Roman history that extends beyond the movie Gladiator, and they will correctly identify Augustus as the first emperor. The were plenty of others who held great power, e.g. Sulla, and later on members of the Triumvirate, but none held the wide swath of power--without actually holding all the offices--that Augustus did.

Augustus was a pretty shrewd politician. He knew he'd have to curry favor with the Senate if he wanted to have any hope of holding all that power without getting bumped off. He was smart enough to learn the lesson Julius never learned. He may not have said in public outright, "I am in control; the Senate is subservient," but that was largely the reality of the situation.

I just think it would be interesting to see an earlier leader from the Republic, like Sulla or even Scipio. That was my main thrust--the Republic gets ignored, the Empire gets all the glory. ...That sounds familiar... :hmm:

Öjevind Lång
Jun 17, 2007, 09:16 AM
I just think it would be interesting to see an earlier leader from the Republic, like Sulla or even Scipio. That was my main thrust--the Republic gets ignored, the Empire gets all the glory. ...That sounds familiar... :hmm:

I did perhaps become too prolix, but my basic argument was that the Roman Empire existed centuries before there were any Emperors, and that it can be fatal to impose modern political perceptions on ancient civilizations.

As you have stated yourself, Julius Caesar was not an emperor, so he might very well represent the Roman Empire during the republic. It is hard to think of any other Roman leader who achieved as much as he before Augustus.

sydhe
Jun 17, 2007, 11:59 AM
I'm not sure I'd want a Roman leader from before 100 BC since the individual consuls generally didn't serve that long (and there were two of them). Although it would be cool to have Cincinnatus.

methane
Jun 17, 2007, 10:31 PM
At any rate, my point was that the name Roman Empire, as it is used today, is often a construct, much in the same way the phrase Byzantine Empire is. (There is a very long debate between Titus001 and myself on this issue.) We divide Rome into two eras, not counting the Monarchy: the Republic and Empire. The Romans themselves did not see it in such stark terms, particularly in Augustus' day. (There was a recognition that things had changed, though, but that had been going on for 30 years.) Having Julius as the leader of the Roman Empire therefore seems a bit anachronistic to modern eyes. Maybe we should change the name to SPQR.


I don't believe the designers meant the word empire in the specific way historians use it to divide Roman history. I think they use it as a more general description. Britain before WW II was an empire even though it was a constitutional monarchy at home. After the Spanish American War people talk about an American Empire even though the US was a republic at home. Rome was very much an empire even before Caesar took power, even though the home city was ruled as a republic.

Though I grant you Caesar shouldn't be called 'emperor'.

MagisterCultuum
Jun 18, 2007, 12:54 AM
In general, I agree with Öjevind Lång. "Imperator" does not mean emperor but simply "Commander". Augustus was in no way the first Imperator, since the title had referred to any General for centuries. Both the names Augustus and Caesar became titles often translated as emperor. The decision that it was Augustus and not Julius who was the first Emperor is usually held as correct, but it is quite arbitrary. Also, after his adoption Octavian's legal name became Gaius Julius Caesar, so if Augustus was the first emperor, then the first emperor was Julius Caesar. ;)

Legionaries would have been better than Praetorians, since they were but a small elite force created by the Senate to be guards of important commanders on their trips back and forth between Rome and the Battlefront. These, of course, are most famous for their later role of guarding the emperors. The most important Praetorians were actually usually Germanic mercenaries, since Roman soldiers were suspected to have ties to the current emperor's political rivals, increasing the chance that the emperors guards would become his assassins (which they very often were).

Cincinnatus would be nice (we could replace Augustus with him, since, as I explained, both the current leaders had the same name). Consul usually didn't serve long because they were legally restricted to a 1 year term, and could not run again until the end of their successors term. (Of course, Julius Caesar and many emperors somehow overcame that restriction and were named Consul for life). Dictators were only legally permitted to remain in office for 6 months, but that didn't stop many (i.e., just about all of them except Cincinnatus) from declaring themselves dictators for life.

Öjevind Lång
Jun 18, 2007, 01:37 AM
I don't believe the designers meant the word empire in the specific way historians use it to divide Roman history. I think they use it as a more general description. Britain before WW II was an empire even though it was a constitutional monarchy at home. After the Spanish American War people talk about an American Empire even though the US was a republic at home. Rome was very much an empire even before Caesar took power, even though the home city was ruled as a republic.

Though I grant you Caesar shouldn't be called 'emperor'.

Historians do not use the term "the Empire" to specifically denote Rome after it became ruled by emperors. When speaking of the political setup, they use the term "the Principate" for that period . To modern people, it can of course be a bit confusing that the Roman Empire was called the Roman Empire long before it was ruled by Emperors (of course it retained the name afterwards), but that is due to later linguistic and semantic developments. As already stated, the usual term for Emperor in Roman times was "Caesar". Augustus assumed a lot of titles and honorific appellations to signify his power. He was Imperator (Commander, Leader), Caesar, Consul for life (and he saw to it that the other Consul always was a nonentity), pontifex maximus (high priest), pater patriae ("the father of the fatherland"), princeps senatus (First Senator = First Citizen), Tribune (leader of the by then powerless Popular Assembly) and Augustus ("the August One").

mrt144
Jun 18, 2007, 02:30 AM
NERD FALLACY! GAMES ARE INSPIRED BY HISTORICAL FACT, THEY ARE NOT HISTORICAL FACT!

so on and so forth forever and ever.

Rince
Jun 18, 2007, 04:47 AM
I usually also prefer gameplay over historical accuracy especially if making it accurate would complicate matters. But in the case of HRE and Charlemagne I really don't see why this choice was made over all the other, much more important and accurate choices, like the inclusion of the austrian-hungarian empire.

Is it really so difficult to at least make sensible leader choices? I think not.

Rince

kazapp
Jun 18, 2007, 05:46 AM
To me, this complaint seems just to be desperate nationalism from a frenchman.

But you can chill, the rest of us don't believe Charlemagne was an evil german.

Including the Holy Roman Empire makes much sense to me, and placing Charlemagne at the head seems only reasonable as he's the nearest they ever got to a memorable leader...

Regarding the suggestion to include a separate Frankish civ: Let me just politely note down that only a Frenchman could propose such a thing with a straight face... or perhaps you would like several dozen german civs to be included too, hint hint nudge nudge?

:)

Jan H
Jun 18, 2007, 06:55 AM
Does it matter? Germany is germany, Prussia is German, HRE is German, Austria is German Switzerland and Belgium are slightly German and Luxembourg is German.Surely Belgium people love reading this!
hehe, indeed :lol:

For those of you who may not know it, German is the third official language of Belgium, besides Dutch (=Flemish) and French. This is because there are about 50.000 German speaking people living in the area near the German border. This area is known as "Ost-Belgien" (East-Belgium), and it was a part of Germany until 1919. It was given to Belgium as compensation for the World War I, as part of the Treaty of Versailles.

Marla_Singer
Jun 18, 2007, 11:11 AM
To me, this complaint seems just to be desperate nationalism from a frenchman.

But you can chill, the rest of us don't believe Charlemagne was an evil german.

Including the Holy Roman Empire makes much sense to me, and placing Charlemagne at the head seems only reasonable as he's the nearest they ever got to a memorable leader...Okay, so Gandhi has lead India to independence, and few times later Pakistan became independent from India. As such, I think Gandhi would be a great leader for the Pakistanese civilization. The logic to consider Charlemagne as the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire is just as flawed.

Charlemagne has develloped the Frankish kingdom he has ruled and the pope crowned him as ruler of the Western Roman Empire. Just because "Roman" is common between the name of both Empires don't make them the same ! Or probably you believe that the Eastern Roman Empire should have Julius Caesar as leader ? :rolleyes:

Rince
Jun 18, 2007, 11:36 AM
Frankly, you suck in History.

I think most people got your point. No need for name-calling since that's exactly what kazapp probably wanted to provoke.

Btw. where exactly do you live? I'm moving to the 92 in september, might have some multiplayer fun.

Rince

Pangur Bán
Jun 18, 2007, 11:43 AM
Marla, you're right. Charlemagne was Emperor (of the Romans) later in life, but was King of the Franks primarily. He wasn't French ethnically, although I'd say being emperor of the Romans might have had some significance considering that the indigenous population of Gaul (vis-a-vis its Germanic rulers) were called Romani, Romans.

My principal reason for agreeing with you though is that the Holy Roman Empire refers to the Kingdom of Germany, which did not exist in Charlemagne's time. Only use of the term "Emperor" connects Charlemagne's realm with the High and Late Medieval HRE, a tenuous tie indeed. The best you can say is that the imperial style of the German kings had precedents in Charlemagne's coronation. France has stronger claim in one vital important sense: the Kingdom of the Franci was called Francia, the Latin word translated as "France". In a sense, the post-Verdun ethnic-split in the Frankish Empire left France with the name Francia and Germany with the title of Emperor, though that wasn't guaranteed until the later 10th century.

Marla_Singer
Jun 18, 2007, 11:44 AM
I think most people got your point. No need for name-calling since that's exactly what kazapp probably wanted to provoke.You're right. I've removed that quote from my post.

Btw. where exactly do you live? I'm moving to the 92 in september, might have some multiplayer fun.I live in Issy-les-Moulineaux. Unfortunately I don't play Civ4 in multiplayer. Sorry about this. ;)

onedreamer
Jun 18, 2007, 12:02 PM
The French Kingdom is as much the heir of the Carolingian Empire as is the Holy Roman Empire.

Ah, LOL please com'on ? Since you're so historically accurate, can you tell us where is buried Charlemagne ? Where was the capital of his regin ? Nowhere in France, IIRC. Charlemagne built the basement of the HRE, I always wanted him in Civ as the ruler of HRE, he has all rights to be there, in Civ, as long as Julius Caesar is the ruler of a Roman Empire. Their stories are perfectly similar. You can object that he was never the ruler of HRE, but to be all so set up and yell scandal is an extreme exaggeration.

cairnsy44
Jun 18, 2007, 12:05 PM
is there any chance that Firaxis will change the name from HRE to Frankish Empire?:confused:

Marla_Singer
Jun 18, 2007, 12:13 PM
Marla, you're right. Charlemagne was Emperor (of the Romans) later in life, but was King of the Franks primarily. He wasn't French ethnically, although I'd say being emperor of the Romans might have had some significance considering that the indigenous population of Gaul (vis-a-vis its Germanic rulers) were called Romani, Romans.The Frankish Kingdom is considered as having been founded by Clovis, who united the multiple Frankish tribes and conqueered most of today's France's territory. Though the kings were Germanic, the people they ruled were indeed christian Romans. And Clovis indeed converted to the christianism in 496 to get his power being accepted by locals.

My principal reason for agreeing with you though is that the Holy Roman Empire refers to the Kingdom of Germany, which did not exist in Charlemagne's time. Only use of the term "Emperor" connects Charlemagne's realm with the High and Late Medieval HRE, a tenuous tie indeed. The best you can say is that the imperial style of the German kings had precedents in Charlemagne's coronation. France has stronger claim in one vital important sense: the Kingdom of the Franci was called Francia, the Latin word translated as "France". In a sense, the post-Verdun ethnic-split in the Frankish Empire left France with the name Francia and Germany with the title of Emperor, though that wasn't guaranteed until the later 10th century.This is true, but it wasn't made as such. At the Treaty of Verdun, what became the French kingdom was indeed called "Francia occidentalis", but what became the Holy Roman Empire (aka Medieval Germany) was still called "Francia Orientalis".

The name "Eastern Francia" only disappeared because Louis the German, who inherited of it at the Treaty of Verdun, also splitted it in 3 at his death. The 3 remaining parts of it being the Kingdoms of Bavaria, of Saxony, and of Swabia. I guess at that time it became complicate to called them "North-Eastern Francia", "Middle-Eastern Francia" and "South-Eastern Francia". ;)

Marla_Singer
Jun 18, 2007, 12:40 PM
Ah, LOL please com'on ? Since you're so historically accurate, can you tell us where is buried Charlemagne ? Where was the capital of his regin ? Nowhere in France, IIRC. Charlemagne built the basement of the HRE, I always wanted him in Civ as the ruler of HRE, he has all rights to be there, in Civ, as long as Julius Caesar is the ruler of a Roman Empire. Their stories are perfectly similar. You can object that he was never the ruler of HRE, but to be all so set up and yell scandal is an extreme exaggeration.Well, okay, so here's a map of the Frankish kingdom by the end of Clovis rule. In blue you can see the Frankish kingdom (511 AD).

http://html.rincondelvago.com/files/6/3/8/000326384.png

As you can see, it was mainly based in today's France, even if the capital was indeed located at today's border between Belgium and Germany.


Okay so now here's a map of Charlemagne's conquests. In blue, you can see the Frankish kingdom as it was at the death of Pepin the Short, Charlemagne's father (768 AD). In orange you can see territories conqueered by Charlemagne (811 AD). And finally in yellow, you can see tributary states.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Empire_carolingien_768-811.jpg/711px-Empire_carolingien_768-811.jpg


Finally here's a map of showing the divided of the Empire in three parts at the Treaty of Verdun (843 AD), and the following conquest of Lothair's middle Francia kingdom by his two brothers at the Treaty of Mersen in (870 AD).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/843-870_Europe.jpg

As you can see both Louis the German, ruling Francia Orientalis, and Charles the bald, ruling Francia Occidentalis, are grand sons of Charlemagne. As such, the French Kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire which have raised later are offshoots of the Carolingian Empire. We can't consider one as being more legitimate than the other.

onedreamer
Jun 18, 2007, 01:04 PM
As you can see both Louis the German, ruling Francia Orientalis, and Charles the bald, ruling Francia Occidentalis, are grand sons of Charlemagne. As such, the French Kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire which have raised later are offshoots of the Carolingian Empire. We can't consider one as being more legitimate than the other.

If we can't then I don't see why yelling at the scandal. Look at that map, 2 of those 3 reigns will form the HRE. It's certainly not the best historical accuracy but we can find even worse cases throught the Civilization series. Let me add that History is ALL BUT precise. History is told in different ways from different sides. No doubt, knowing the "french cousins" in France it's told that Charlemagne was the father of the French Kingdom, but in Italy he's widely known as the first Holy Roman Emperor , and I personally don't give a damn if that is 100% accurate or not, it's certainly as close to reality as him being the founder of the French Kingdom. Look at this picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/Charlemagne-by-Durer.jpg/270px-Charlemagne-by-Durer.jpg : I can see at the top left the future symbol of the HRE and at the top right the future symbol of France. Again, HRE ruled by Charlemagne might not be 100% accurate, but your overreaction is much more absurd than Firaxis' choice. I don't know if you realize it, but you and a host of other ppl are yelling scandal for a simple terminology, in fact Charlemagne was crowned as "Imperator Augustus", it's not HRE but at the end of the day, it's just a matter of how high of themselves his successors thought and wanted to be called :P
If I'm not wrong he is still the first emperor crowned by the Pope, and for the records, before the coronation, he called himself King of Franks AND Longobards.

Marla_Singer
Jun 18, 2007, 01:30 PM
Well, that's where you got things wrong Onedreamer. I've never claimed Charlemagne should be considered as a French leader ! :eek:

I just ask you to understand that for the same reasons you would be pissed to see it appear as French, I would be pissed to see him appear as German (or as leader of the HRE which is the same).

Hence, if Charlemagne should appear in the Civilization game, something which is far from being a bad idea, then it can't be as anything else than as the leader of the Franks. Actually, that's what he was after all. I hope you can at least agree on this.

TheLastOne36
Jun 18, 2007, 01:57 PM
hehe, indeed :lol:

For those of you who may not know it, German is the third official language of Belgium, besides Dutch (=Flemish) and French. This is because there are about 50.000 German speaking people living in the area near the German border. This area is known as "Ost-Belgien" (East-Belgium), and it was a part of Germany until 1919. It was given to Belgium as compensation for the World War I, as part of the Treaty of Versailles.

Noticed how i said that Swiss and Belgium are slightly german? Probably a more appropriate word is partly. But i did mean what you said.

Drago Askani
Jun 19, 2007, 12:04 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/HolyRoma.html

Onagan
Jun 19, 2007, 01:17 AM
can you tell us where is buried Charlemagne ?Yes, it's remains are in the Aachener Dom. Everybody knows that.

onedreamer
Jun 19, 2007, 05:31 AM
Well, that's where you got things wrong Onedreamer. I've never claimed Charlemagne should be considered as a French leader ! :eek:

I didn't say "french leader" heh... or can you quote it ? I wrote father of the french kingdom, and I gathered it from your own words:

The French Kingdom is as much the heir of the Carolingian Empire as is the Holy Roman Empire.

I'm sorry but I'm French, and I can tell you that it does matter for me to see all of a sudden Charlemagne being removed from the History of my country. At least Hannibal was from Carthages and Gandhi was from India. The same would be true with Joan of Arch being from France.



I just ask you to understand that for the same reasons you would be pissed to see it appear as French, I would be pissed to see him appear as German (or as leader of the HRE which is the same).

But he was german. As I already said, Franks are a germanic tribe, and the fact that Clovis conquered the whole Gallia doesn't change that, the capital of the Frankish Kingdom was still in Germany.

Hence, if Charlemagne should appear in the Civilization game, something which is far from being a bad idea, then it can't be as anything else than as the leader of the Franks.

I don't agree, first for a technical reason: there are already France and the Celts, heavily based on the Gauls, in the game, second because Franks were not a civilization and can be well represented by Celts, and third because as I said, at least in Italy Charlemagne is widely (popularily) known as the first HRE. The Holy Roman Emperor was an Emperor crowned by the Popes, and he was the first such emperor, over the course of centuries the position and the name changed, but he was the beginning of it all, so I think it's plausible for him to be leading HRE, as long as JC is leading Rome. You may think differently, but in the end this is just a game and your opinion is just an opinion, not an absolute truth.

Also, as a reminder, he was king of Franks AND Longobards prior to becoming emperor, and the HRE includes a good part of Italy, so it's not solely germanic.

Ishon
Jun 19, 2007, 06:03 AM
Yes, people are idiots and they'd rather have yet another fallacy in Civ than see Barbarossa, who they didn't learn about at American schools.

Jerrymander
Jun 19, 2007, 06:53 AM
I still think Tamerlane should be put in, not these boring people, like Abraham Lincoln, Charlemagne, and Sitting Bull.

Monty Python Ni
Jun 19, 2007, 08:25 AM
The French Kingdom is as much the heir of the Carolingian Empire as is the Holy Roman Empire.

I'm sorry but I'm French, and I can tell you that it does matter for me to see all of a sudden Charlemagne being removed from the History of my country. At least Hannibal was from Carthages and Gandhi was from India. The same would be true with Joan of Arch being from France.

Charlemagne IS NOT from the Holy roman empire. He's a FRANKISH KING.

Would you consider Queen Victoria as Australian ? Would you consider George II of England as American ? I'm sorry but this does not make sense at all !
Weren't the Franks Germanic though?:confused:

franlato
Jun 19, 2007, 09:06 AM
I agree that it's a falacy but it's a game after all, not a history book. What is the omen scenario then, an absolute sin???? Nobody ever said that a game had to be 100% true to history. It's just there to be fun. Charlemagne never built a spaceship and I can tell ya that he we do that multiple time in the next months :)

Sansevero
Jun 19, 2007, 09:41 AM
as long as JC is leading Rome.


I'm not arguing one way or the other on Charlemagne and HRE, but your argument about Julius Caesar is odd: JC did lead Rome. If you're making the point that he was leader before Rome was officially (by our modern view) an empire (Principate), but that Rome is sometimes called "Roman Empire" in the game, I would point out that every civ in the game is named according to this scheme ("adjective" Empire), at least in the Civilopedia.

TheLastOne36
Jun 19, 2007, 02:09 PM
Let's face it. Fireaxis wanted Charlemagne not HRE.

And if they really wanted to include them, why not include him as a non-civ related leader. As the new Matching system between civ and leader, You could've made Charlemagne with Germany, France and for all you care, the romans!

Instead of adding HRE the above idea is excellent in my opinion.

Marla_Singer
Jun 19, 2007, 06:21 PM
Weren't the Franks Germanic though?:confused:Yeah well so what ? The Dutch people are Germanic too and to some extent so are the English too. What's your point ?

The French, Spanish and Roman civilizations are all latin. So what ?

Marla_Singer
Jun 19, 2007, 06:24 PM
Let's face it. Fireaxis wanted Charlemagne not HRE.

And if they really wanted to include them, why not include him as a non-civ related leader. As the new Matching system between civ and leader, You could've made Charlemagne with Germany, France and for all you care, the romans!

Instead of adding HRE the above idea is excellent in my opinion.Yeah I agree it could have been an interesting option to be able to select Charlemagne either as a leader of Germany or as a leader of France. But anyway, the best option to get Charlemagne in is to make of the leader of what he has really ruled, hence the Frankish Kingdom. As I've said in another thread, there aren't that many civilization representing that era of History between 500 AD and 1,000 AD. So why not ?

onedreamer
Jun 22, 2007, 09:15 AM
Technically according to these arguments Stalin should not rule Russia but the USSR. Actually it would be a stronger argument, since with the revolution many illustrious people were killed or escaped, leaving a huge cultural gap. Many cultural values were lost in Russia with the revolution.
Considering that the civs start in 4000 BC, it doesn't really matter if Charlemagne ruled the HRE during his lifespan, because he's going to live from 4000 BC to 2025 (if I'm not wrong ?) AD, which covers the historical period of HRE. Add to that that he was the one who made it possible for the HRE to exist in a near future, that he was the first emperor crowned in the same fashion the holy roman emperors will be crowned, and that his empire was exactly the same as HRE plus the current France, and lastly that unlike what Marla Singer keeps stating, he did NOT only rule over the Frankish Kingdom, that was at the beginning of his reign, he then became king of the Franks and Longboards, and then Emperor. Essentially since his death an the appearance of the name HRE to define the empire, the people and the culture of those territories were also the same.

Pangur Bán
Jun 22, 2007, 10:12 AM
Considering that the civs start in 4000 BC, it doesn't really matter if Charlemagne ruled the HRE during his lifespan, because he's going to live from 4000 BC to 2025 (if I'm not wrong ?)

This is one of the best arguments for having Germany cover the HRE. Since HRE is Germany between the 10th century and 1806; what is the point of civilization's time span if every culture is going to get a different civ for each era of its history?! Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Norman England, England, British Empire ... anyone think they should all be added? Better still, we could add all these and remove China, Mali, the Arabs, and the Incas to make room. That'd be fair, wouldn't it?! :eek:

Gaius Octavius
Jun 30, 2007, 08:49 PM
Thunderfall just posted an interesting quote from a preview of BtS:

There's Afterworld, a tip of the hat to X-Com, with hit-points and campaigns where you control a team of five futuro body-tanks quelling an uprising of machines gifted with human sentience. There's Next War, a tip of the hat to DEFCON, that's set after 2050 and comes with a full armoury of devastating nuclear strikes and gigantic Mechs. Then there's Charlemagne, a tip of the hat to the legendary French king. In this, you have to conquer all of western Europe, kissing up to the Pope by spreading his brand of religion and warring with Saladin, then receiving some natty fighting units.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229434

Just thought I'd add more fuel to the fire. :p

TheLastOne36
Jun 30, 2007, 08:52 PM
So fireaxis is smart enough to know what HRE is doing civ 4. they want it for the market. they clearly know that Charlemgane never ruled he HRE. They just think we'red dumb enough to believe them and go for a "cool" civ called the HRE.

And they just forgot to reread there preview paragraphs :lol:

cybrxkhan
Jun 30, 2007, 09:18 PM
wow... i want to jump in the Quote Wars too!


So fireaxis is smart enough to know what HRE is doing civ 4. they want it for the market. they clearly know that Charlemgane never ruled he HRE. They just think we'red dumb enough to believe them and go for a "cool" civ called the HRE.

but not all of us are dumb... some of us are smart and some of us are children of immigrants too! the "Holy Roman Empire"... might as well make the "United States of America" or "The People's Republic of China" or the "United Soviet Socialist Republic" civs. :D

cybrxkhan
Jun 30, 2007, 09:19 PM
Yeah I agree it could have been an interesting option to be able to select Charlemagne either as a leader of Germany or as a leader of France. But anyway, the best option to get Charlemagne in is to make of the leader of what he has really ruled, hence the Frankish Kingdom. As I've said in another thread, there aren't that many civilization representing that era of History between 500 AD and 1,000 AD. So why not ?

the two only reasonable solutions are to either change the HRE to the Franks or to make Charlemagne leader of two civs (France and Germany), as listed above. the question is, which one would be better, and which one would be more supported?

The Thracian
Jul 01, 2007, 03:05 AM
I didn't like the fact the HRE Was added when you already have Germany so you have two civs the same in location just in different eras. Barbossa would have been my immediate choice.

TheLastOne36
Jul 01, 2007, 06:11 AM
How about Charlemagne as a stand alone leader? with the new mix-and-match you don't need him to have a certain civ.

cybrxkhan
Jul 01, 2007, 08:17 AM
^that has been suggested before... it sounds funny, it would be a decent solution though

Phlegmak
Jul 09, 2007, 07:37 AM
The French Kingdom is as much the heir of the Carolingian Empire as is the Holy Roman Empire.

I'm sorry but I'm French, and I can tell you that it does matter for me to see all of a sudden Charlemagne being removed from the History of my country. At least Hannibal was from Carthages and Gandhi was from India. The same would be true with Joan of Arch being from France.

Charlemagne IS NOT from the Holy roman empire. He's a FRANKISH KING.

Would you consider Queen Victoria as Australian ? Would you consider George II of England as American ? I'm sorry but this does not make sense at all !
I agree with you, Marla_Singer. It's the same with Alexander being the leader of the Greeks. Since Alexander was Macedonian, he clearly should be the leader of the Macedonians.

Uberfrog
Jul 09, 2007, 08:02 AM
There are plenty of historic fallacies in Civ-

The Civilopedia says Julius Caesar was First Emperor of Rome- he wasn't, Augustus was.

Alexander leads the Greeks, despite being King of Macedon.

Queen Victoria ruled the British Empire, not the English.

Stalin was leader of the USSR, not the Russian Empire.

Frederick (Germany) was Holy Roman Emperor, not German Emperor.

Camulodunum and Verulamium are Celtic cities in the game, despite really being built by Romans- the Celts sacked them.

Boudicca wasn't a Celt- she was an Iceni, and should really be a Britanni. Her picture also shows here in front of a clearly Scottish highland landscape with late medieval castles behind her.


However, as you're probably sick of hearing, I don't really care. The game is good- I don't play it for a history lesson.

Anyway, it's all about changing history- hence you can have Rome invade the Aztecs, or the Indians plundering coast lines.

And hey- if they were 100% right all the time, we'd have nothing to complain about, and then where would we be?

Edit: and anyway, stuff like this is what changing 'Your Details' in-game is for- with a quick Google for Macedonian city names, I am currently playing as Alexander of Macedon with the proper Macedonian cities.

Carolingian
Jul 09, 2007, 08:24 AM
Frederick (Germany) was Holy Roman Emperor

No, he wasn't. Frederick the Great was king of Prussia.

Vietcong
Jul 09, 2007, 08:29 AM
Hannibal never ruled Carthage, and Gandhi never ruled India.
(Not debating the argument of Charlemagne as leader of the HRE, just pointing out that this isn't new territory for Firaxis)

after the 2nd punic war and befor hannibals exile, he did become a senetor in the carthage senit

Saim
Jul 09, 2007, 09:09 AM
Just wondering Uberfrog, are you using Greek (it's Greek now) cities, like Thessaloniki, or are you using Slavic Macedonian cities, like Sarajevo? Because only the first one would be accurate.

Gladi
Jul 09, 2007, 09:25 AM
And Charlemagne doesn't come out of nowhere, he's a Frankish King from the Carolingian dynasty

Bright day
Pippin-Arnulf dynasty...

Breunor
Jul 09, 2007, 09:30 AM
No, he wasn't. Frederick the Great was king of Prussia.

Well, that also depends on how picky you are!! I'm not an expert on the following, so somebody maybe should correct me, but this shows what 18th century politics was like .......

The Hohenzollern holdings by the 17th century included their power base, as the Elector of Brandenberg, which held the title of Margrave, and of the ruler of the Dukedom of Prussia.

Frederick the Great's Grandfather, Frederick I (I think he had a different title as Elector of Brandenberg, maybe Frederick III?) was needling to become a 'king'. Under the treaty of the Holy Roman Empire, the only kingdom allowed in the empire was Bohemia, and only the Emperor, who at the time was Leopold I of Habsburg, could give him the title.

Leopold wanted Frederick I's help against France in the War of Spanish Succession, so he allowed a compromise. Frederick could be a King IN Prussia. That is, since Prussia was not part of the Holy Roman Empire, Leopold agreed that Frederick could call himself King in Prussia, and that was his title, but not in Brandenberg. He was NOT 'King OF Prussia'!

Of course, Frederick I went around calling himself 'King in Prussia' and not as often 'Elector of Brandenberg'. (Similarly, Frederick the Great's enemy, Maria Theresa, called herself 'Queen', since she was Queen of Hungary but she was Archduchess of Austria).

Frederick I son, Frederick the Great's father, was Frederick William I, who also called himself 'King in Prussia'.

Frederick the Great, when he took over in 1940, stopped the pretense and started calling himself 'King of Prussia' (not sure exactly when). So, yes, I guess we can say that he was the 'King of Prussia', but, of course, scholars often point out that it wasn't technically correct. But, we are talking about Frederick the Great, who was going to stop him?

Anyway, this shows that modern day lawyers could have had a field day in previous times. Could you imagine how many people would be arguing about this if it happened today! :-)

Best wishes,

Bruenor

Uberfrog
Jul 09, 2007, 09:54 AM
No, he wasn't. Frederick the Great was king of Prussia.

See- I can't even get the facts right!

Just wondering Uberfrog, are you using Greek (it's Greek now) cities, like Thessaloniki, or are you using Slavic Macedonian cities, like Sarajevo? Because only the first one would be accurate.

I'm using the ancient Macedonian city names I found on a map in Wikipedia, with the capital as Pella. So I guess I'm using the Greek ones.

Saim
Jul 09, 2007, 10:04 AM
Well that's wierd... I always that that the capital of Macedon was Thessaloniki/Salonica.

Carolingian
Jul 09, 2007, 10:32 AM
Leopold agreed that Frederick could call himself King in Prussia, and that was his title, but not in Brandenberg. He was NOT 'King OF Prussia'!

No. Frederick the Great was King OF Prussia ("König von Preußen"), as opposed to "King IN Prussia" ("König in Preußen"), from 1772, after the acquisition of West Prussia.

TheLastOne36
Jul 09, 2007, 10:33 AM
The Ancient Kingdom of Macedon was Greek, Not slavic like it is now. I think.

Correct me if i'm wrong. Always up for a history lesson.

Breunor
Jul 09, 2007, 10:46 AM
No. Frederick the Great was King OF Prussia ("König von Preußen"), as opposed to "King IN Prussia" ("König in Preußen"), from 1772, after the acquisition of West Prussia.

OK, so that's how it played out. Thanks!

Breunor

troyDoogle7
Jul 09, 2007, 10:49 AM
I am boycotting bts because of this, myself and the hundreds of thousands of other charlemagne fans, will boycott it because of this reason.....

(or maybe we can fix it in our upcoming "Charley feeling frankish" mod for bts)

cybrxkhan
Jul 09, 2007, 03:19 PM
Well that's wierd... I always that that the capital of Macedon was Thessaloniki/Salonica.

the ancient capital of Macedon was Pella.


The Ancient Kingdom of Macedon was Greek, Not slavic like it is now. I think.

Correct me if i'm wrong. Always up for a history lesson.

it was Hellenized.

Spearthrower
Jul 09, 2007, 08:51 PM
There is, always has been, and always will be, an extreme simplification in the civ series that makes little distinctualisation between ethnic, cultural and political boundaries.

It is simplified to make it accessible for those who are only interested in history to a point - i.e. 95% of their customer base, not the 5% who enjoy complete accuracy.

For me, I studied Renaissance to Reformation Europe at A-level and the Hellenistic Greek period and early Roman history at UCL London..... but you know what? I play for fun and while I do find it amusing that they make huge historical errors, it's hardly unusual. Most people's perceptions of history are coloured by Hollywood anyway, where apparently every good leader in history was fighting for truth, justice and the American way.

Civ is rammed full of anachronisms, discontinuities and fractured, unmatching facts. What's one more for the pile? ;)

onedreamer
Jul 10, 2007, 07:08 AM
Camulodunum and Verulamium are Celtic cities in the game, despite really being built by Romans- the Celts sacked them.

Boudicca wasn't a Celt- she was an Iceni, and should really be a Britanni. Her picture also shows here in front of a clearly Scottish highland landscape with late medieval castles behind her.

Neither Camulodunum or Verulamium have been founded by Romans, they are both celtic cities (Verlamion and Camulodunon), and the Iceni are a celtic tribe like the Britanni (which are ANOTHER tribe), Boudicca is Celt, and once more, Charlemagne wasn't simply king of the Franks, he was at first, he then become king of Franks and Longobards and ultimately was crowned Emperor. The fact that his empire had a slightly different name from HRE shouldn't make anyone yell at the scandal IMO, at least he did rule this empire, while for example Julius Caesar didn't, he was killed just before.

Uberfrog
Jul 10, 2007, 07:14 AM
I am boycotting bts because of this, myself and the hundreds of thousands of other charlemagne fans, will boycott it because of this reason.....


That's your choice, and fair enough, but I think you'll be missing out on a great expansion because of one of many historical inaccuracies in what is ultimately a game, as opposed to a history lesson.

As I said before- you can always change the Empire Name manually in-game using Your Details.

elderotter
Jul 10, 2007, 07:31 AM
Part of BTS is mix and match - if Charlemagne as HRE bothers you so much Just mix and match him with France.

elderotter
Jul 10, 2007, 07:35 AM
Neither Camulodunum or Verulamium have been founded by Romans, they are both celtic cities (Verlamion and Camulodunon), and the Iceni are a celtic tribe like the Britanni (which are ANOTHER tribe), Boudicca is Celt, and once more, Charlemagne wasn't simply king of the Franks, he was at first, he then become king of Franks and Longobards and ultimately was crowned Emperor. The fact that his empire had a slightly different name from HRE shouldn't make anyone yell at the scandal IMO, at least he did rule this empire, while for example Julius Caesar didn't, he was killed just before.Gaius Julius Caesar was Dictator of Rome - so for all intents and purposes he did rule Rome. The Rome he ruled was on the border of Republic and Empire. Augustus is marked as the actual first Emperor of Rome, but Rome was an empire before that - they just did not acknowledge it because they hated the idea of 1 person being the permanent First Man in Rome.

Crusader1089
Jul 10, 2007, 07:40 AM
Neither Camulodunum or Verulamium have been founded by Romans, they are both celtic cities (Verlamion and Camulodunon), and the Iceni are a celtic tribe like the Britanni (which are ANOTHER tribe), Boudicca is Celt, and once more, Charlemagne wasn't simply king of the Franks, he was at first, he then become king of Franks and Longobards and ultimately was crowned Emperor. The fact that his empire had a slightly different name from HRE shouldn't make anyone yell at the scandal IMO, at least he did rule this empire, while for example Julius Caesar didn't, he was killed just before.

Ok pedant. Welcome to super pedantry.
The Celts in the traditional sense did not exist at all. Celt was the name the Greeks gave to a tribe living north of Macedonia. The Celts were much like the Greeks in terms of technology but shared a different genetic pool and had a different language which was a more ancient form of protoindoeuropean. This language existed with little variation across the whole of the continent of germanic Europe. Thus any barbarian found by the Romans or the Greeks were given the title 'Celt' despite having nothing more in common with the Celts than the language. If anything the Celts were less like the traditional Celts than the Romans were. The Romans and the traditional celts shared many genetic traits while the true Celts and the the traditional celts did not.
So Uberfrog is accurate in saying she is a Britanni or an Iceni, rather than a Celt. Because the Celts never existed in the form portrayed by the game and most classical history.

In other news Julius is not an emperor, he was never crowned Imperator and was merely dictator for life. He would never become emperor either, the political climate was too unstable for him to have accepted such a title which is why so many wars were fought before Octavian took the title.

In yet more other news Charlemagne is the king of the French. When his empire was divided up his first born son gained France, the other two getting the Holy Roman Empire and that little bit enbetween with Italy.
In terms of ancestry he is more a King of France than Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, a title bestowed on him by the pope in his later years.

onedreamer
Jul 10, 2007, 08:16 AM
Ok pedant. Welcome to super pedantry.
The Celts in the traditional sense did not exist at all. Celt was the name the Greeks gave to a tribe living north of Macedonia. The Celts were much like the Greeks in terms of technology but shared a different genetic pool and had a different language which was a more ancient form of protoindoeuropean. This language existed with little variation across the whole of the continent of germanic Europe. Thus any barbarian found by the Romans or the Greeks were given the title 'Celt' despite having nothing more in common with the Celts than the language. If anything the Celts were less like the traditional Celts than the Romans were. The Romans and the traditional celts shared many genetic traits while the true Celts and the the traditional celts did not.
So Uberfrog is accurate in saying she is a Britanni or an Iceni, rather than a Celt. Because the Celts never existed in the form portrayed by the game and most classical history.

Oh oh, so as far as pedantry goes, the term "keltai" (celts) was first given by some greek colonists to the warring celtic populations around the colony of Massilia, and not to the ones you mentioned. Anyways, I am well aware that after that it was a term used in general by greeks in the same way romans used the term barbarians. But I am also aware that neither me, or you, or Firaxis are ancient greek or romans, therefore for us all, the celtic culture extended in what are now the whole central europe, south eastern and south western europe, north italy and great britain, including the Iceni.

In other news Julius is not an emperor, he was never crowned Imperator and was merely dictator for life. He would never become emperor either, the political climate was too unstable for him to have accepted such a title which is why so many wars were fought before Octavian took the title.

isn't this what I said ?

In yet more other news Charlemagne is the king of the French.

I wonder on what TV channel are these news :D

Crusader1089
Jul 10, 2007, 08:46 AM
Oh oh, so as far as pedantry goes, the term "keltai" (celts) was first given by some greek colonists to the warring celtic populations around the colony of Massilia, and not to the ones you mentioned. Anyways, I am well aware that after that it was a term used in general by greeks in the same way romans used the term barbarians. But I am also aware that neither me, or you, or Firaxis are ancient greek or romans, therefore for us all, the celtic culture extended in what are now the whole central europe, south eastern and south western europe, north italy and great britain, including the Iceni.

My point is that the Celts never existed. There was no barbarian expansion from Germany across to France and Britain. There was no shared heritage.
They only shared a language.
Are the tribes of Brazil the same nation as the people living in Lisbon? No? Why? They speak the same language.
In the same way grouping the scots, the iceni etc, the Belgae the Helvetii, the Aquatainii etc etc together is wrong. They have the same language, with a few changes, yes. But they are not the same people.

Dennis_Moore
Jul 10, 2007, 12:27 PM
My point is that the Celts never existed. There was no barbarian expansion from Germany across to France and Britain. There was no shared heritage.
They only shared a language.


So how come they shared a language if they didn't share a heritage, did they learn Celtic in high shool or something?

de Mott
Jul 10, 2007, 12:39 PM
Considering Charlemagne as leader of the HRE is EXACTLY considering him as German ! The full name of the HRE is "Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicæ", which means "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation".

That's a little bit misleading. The sacrum romanum imperium was given the aforementioned appendix in the 15th century.
Btw, the term sacrum romanum imperium emerged in the 13th century and thus the connection to Charlemagne is indeed blatantly bs ;)

cybrxkhan
Jul 10, 2007, 03:36 PM
okay, we all know that Firaxis has really bad historical accuracy sometimes.

fortunately, at least we don't have Charlemagne leader the Roman civilization.

Zhahz
Jul 10, 2007, 03:43 PM
This thread delivers the comedy.

It's truly hard to believe that anybody cares about historical inaccuracies in a game, especially a game that isn't recreating history (except sorta, maybe, remotely, stretching it, in a few scenarios). It is amusing to see people get all bent out of shape over this trivial stuff though...so don't stop!

The game has historical flavor - and that's it.

cybrxkhan
Jul 10, 2007, 03:47 PM
im angry the HRE are in, but oh well, at least they didn't add the Confederate States of America.

Spearthrower
Jul 10, 2007, 05:45 PM
My point is that the Celts never existed.

What a strange position to be taking - why go against all accepted understanding that Celts shared not only language, but culture, symbolism, rites and general way of life? Look at Hallstat Celtic culture - it was widely spread across much of Europe in the Bronze Age.

How much exactly does it take to satisfy you that they share the same culture?

Of course they existed :rolleyes: once again we have this constant tension and lack of synergetic understanding between ethnicity, culture, language and politics. You are simply arguing that their tribal names have precedent over their cultural one.

cybrxkhan
Jul 10, 2007, 06:32 PM
My point is that the Celts never existed.

Celts existed. but they probably didn't call themselves Celts, and people may have misconceptions about them. That's all.

Spearthrower
Jul 11, 2007, 04:51 AM
You are totally right cbrxkhan - of course they didnt call themselves the Celts! :D I dont think that's an issue..... even with modern day nations and ethnic groups, the adjective we use in English (or any other language) is not the name they call themselves.

Nor does calling them all "Celts" imply any ethnic unity.... culture does not require people to have the same genes to share it! This is the crux of this issue and in fact of this thread - anachronous thought! It is really hard to fully imagine what Europe would have been like with no political/ethnic borders, but tiny chiefdoms littered across from atlantic to the middle east. Just as it is hard for people who have been educated to believe that Charlemagne was French to accept that this is an anachronistic and totally untenable concept (especially given that the Franks originated in modern day Germany) that speaks more of nationalistic education systems than of historical reality. HRE is a political entity, not an ethnic one.

What's in a name? A rose by any other name may welll smell as sweet.... but there'll always be people who argue that it doesn't because it's not a "rose".

Saim
Jul 14, 2007, 11:01 AM
The Ancient Kingdom of Macedon was Greek, Not slavic like it is now. I think.

Correct me if i'm wrong. Always up for a history lesson.

It was neither. It became assimilated into the Greek ethnicity though.

TheLastOne36
Jul 14, 2007, 11:18 AM
then what was it before that happened?

*GAH ALIENS!!!!! * :joke:

cybrxkhan
Jul 14, 2007, 12:18 PM
VANILLA FALLACY - QIN SHI HUANG NEVER RULED CHINA!!! HE RULED THE QIN DYNAYSTY!!!! :eek:

:lol: 1/2:joke:

we're supposed to be arguing about Charly or HRE or something here, aren't we...

Draknith
Jul 14, 2007, 02:10 PM
From what I thought, Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emporer. Pope Leo III in 800 AD crowned Charlemagne Emporer after his help on Christmas Day 799 AD. Legitimizing his rule over the former Roman Empire.

ohcrapitsnico
Jul 14, 2007, 03:46 PM
From what I thought, Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emporer. Pope Leo III in 800 AD crowned Charlemagne Emporer after his help on Christmas Day 799 AD. Legitimizing his rule over the former Roman Empire.

Charlemagne was not known as the HRE rather crowned an emperor of the frankish kingdom by the pope, saying Charlemagne was a HRE is saying the Roman empire is Italy.

uppi
Jul 14, 2007, 04:18 PM
Charlemagne was not known as the HRE rather crowned an emperor of the frankish kingdom by the pope, saying Charlemagne was a HRE is saying the Roman empire is Italy.

Charlemagne was not crowned "emperor of the frankish kingdom" or somthing like that, he was crowned "Imperator Romanorum" or Roman Emperor like all later Holy Roman Emperors

ohcrapitsnico
Jul 14, 2007, 04:23 PM
Charlemagne was not crowned "emperor of the frankish kingdom" or somthing like that, he was crowned "Imperator Romanorum" or Roman Emperor like all later Holy Roman Emperors

Regardless of whether he was or not, the kingdom he ruled was not known as the HRE, secondly if he really was a roman emperor why didn't he rule from Rome?

cybrxkhan
Jul 14, 2007, 04:25 PM
well, he was designated the ruler of the "Western Empire", a sucessor, more rather, but he was just some Germanic barbarian, at least to the only real "Romans" left, the Byzantiots.

TheLastOne36
Jul 14, 2007, 04:29 PM
Besides the Western Roman Empire was France Italy and Spain. Not really germany is it?

ohcrapitsnico
Jul 14, 2007, 04:30 PM
well, he was designated the ruler of the "Western Empire", a sucessor, more rather, but he was just some Germanic barbarian, at least to the only real "Romans" left, the Byzantiots.

In my view I wouldn't consider him a HRE nor successor unless a roman emperor passed it on to him.

cybrxkhan
Jul 14, 2007, 04:31 PM
man, I just love all of these threads the HRE inspires. you're amazing, Firaxis. maybe you'll even interest newspapers and news magazines...

TIME front cover (with picture of Charlemagne behind):

Contreversy: Is Computer Game-Maker Trying to Ruin the Gaming Business?

cybrxkhan
Jul 14, 2007, 04:32 PM
In my view I wouldn't consider him a HRE nor successor unless a roman emperor passed it on to him.

well, i just stated a fact, but i do agree though he was recognized by the pope, I don't recognize him as a real sucessor.

TheLastOne36
Jul 14, 2007, 04:33 PM
well they certainly ruined a Video Game Community.

Also what's the reaction to HRE in other Civ cites?

Crosspost by the pho guy

ohcrapitsnico
Jul 14, 2007, 04:36 PM
well they certainly ruined a Video Game Community.

Also what's the reaction to HRE in other Civ cites?

Crosspost by the pho guy

Unless the other gaming sites are and idiots I would say other sites have at least a few protestors.:) :p :rolleyes:

TheLastOne36
Jul 14, 2007, 04:39 PM
Seeing as the biggest community for civ is burning up in hell, i can't imagine how other sites are doing... Lack of moderators, etc...

uppi
Jul 14, 2007, 04:40 PM
Regardless of whether he was or not, the kingdom he ruled was not known as the HRE, secondly if he really was a roman emperor why didn't he rule from Rome?

Why does a roman emperor have to rule from Rome? There were a few real Roman Emperors, who did not rule from Rome. Rome was in Charlemagne's territory, however. This was not true for most of his successors.

ohcrapitsnico
Jul 14, 2007, 05:04 PM
Why does a roman emperor have to rule from Rome? There were a few real Roman Emperors, who did not rule from Rome. Rome was in Charlemagne's territory, however. This was not true for most of his successors.

As long as they are roman they don't have to rule from Rome...:confused:

cybrxkhan
Jul 14, 2007, 05:06 PM
well, the last Western Roman capital was Ravenna, actually, although the symbolic center was still Rome...

Gaius Octavius
Jul 14, 2007, 05:30 PM
I saw only one anti-HRE thread on Apolyton. I guess they're more civilized. :p

TheLastOne36
Jul 14, 2007, 05:33 PM
give link. Thinking of signing up and adding some poland to the thread!

r_rolo1
Jul 14, 2007, 05:33 PM
@Gaius Octavius

All the HRE whinners came to CFC..... surely looks like it! ( there's still somebody counting the number of HRE threads? )