Personally I think Charlemange should be in the expansion (should have been in the vanilla version in my opinion) and I really don't care how they do it. I agree the HRE is rather week but how else does he go in? He ruled at a time where there was no French or German (or Prussian) nation, and an area where the Celts were (are they any more deserving than HRE). I think the best they could have done was put him as the Frankish Civ. Perhaps he could have gone in a a barbarian CIV (Goths, visigoths, Lombards, Franks) but I think that is worse. At least with the HRE you can honor other great cities/leaders from that region (Checks/Austrians/Swiss/Ploes/Slavs/Hungarians). Bottom line to me is that Charlemange deserves to be a leader (not a great general).

Yes, but then you can always add him just as another leader for both France and Germany...

On the representation of important cities part: Isn't it kinda perverse to throw all that into one civ? It looks like that just meshes everything up into one and mixes it. It looks to me like a Salad Bowl with - I don't know - tomato-pasta sauce as a dressing...

;) mick

Charlemange should have appear in Civilization I right away. Without him the world would look different.
I'm not that happy with the Holy Roman Empire either. I will change it into the Frankish Empire.
That would fit great with the Celts, Vikings and Native Americans.

No problem with Karl the Great in CivIV ( late insertion IMHO )
No problem with Holy Roman Empire in CivIV
Have a problem with Holy Roman Empire + Germany in CivIV

I rest my case....

Yes, but then you can always add him just as another leader for both France and Germany...
Quite funny for a guy who was most probably born in Belgium (in the area around Liege, where is family came from) and who spoke Old Dutch :lol: (I'm saying probably , because historians aren't completly sure and most records from that time are in Latin). Maybe he should be the leader of a Belgian civ... Aachen is close enough to our borders, so we could annexate that easily ;) :D

Yeah, I have a problem with HRE as well, if we already have Germany. I think the concept of Civilization's "civilization" was always that they represent some broadely seen cultural group from its beginning until modern era - that way you could play, say Russians, seeing them first as people of Rus, then Muscovy, Russian Empire and finally Soviet Union and the Russian Federation, depending on the era and government type. But having HRE next to Germany flies completely in the face of this approach and the concept of Civilization.

Not to mention that saying that HRE represents "Eastern Europe" (as someone said in the chat) shows an absolute ignorance and idiocy when it comes to history and geography.

I think Charlemange's empire was neither German not French. He was crowned as the HRE by the pope and using the HRE CIV represents Papal dominance in Europe through the middel ages and Rennasaince. I don't like the name but the concept for his empire is valid. He's not French nor German, what was his civilization?

Charlemange should have appear in Civilization I right away. Without him the world would look different.
I'm not that happy with the Holy Roman Empire either. I will change it into the Frankish Empire.
That would fit great with the Celts, Vikings and Native Americans.

Funny you should mention that. No Charlemagne of the Franks was my greatest regret with regard to Civ I ( Okay, mabe may greatest regret was that if you drew the isle of Britain as a starting location, you might as well resign because it was only about 5 or 6 tiles , but it was my number 2 regret ) .

I also think Bismark and Frederick equally belong as Specific German leaders/civs. The germany we think of is represented is really Prussia, expanded to include the other germanic nations something that evolved later in time (close to the American Civ emergence). Speeking of which America is also a poor choice of words for the CIV it should be united states to differentiate from the other westerne hemisphere nations and of course the "NEW" Native American CIV.

Absolutely. the USA is distinct from America

I was under the impression that the Charlemange's empire was pretty much the HRE even if it wasn't officially called that.

Charlemange was the first leader of the HRE. He was crowned emperor of Rome by the Pope Leo III. The Pope was THE MOST powerful person in Europe at the time and him calling him the next roman Emperor was a way to slap the face of "eastern Rome" and unite the lands of what would be France through half of Poland south to Rome.

It was later dubbed the Holy Roman Empire. So it isn't wrong. The problem people have is that the well written and known HRE is from the 1500 onwards when it was a confederation of mini kingdoms that kept Germany and parts of Poland un-unified. The problem calling him French or German alone is that Germany is named after the style of nomadic tribes from that area: Anglos, Saxons, Celts, Franks, Goths, Normans, Vandals, ect. They all moved west and some came the founding people of some lands.

HRE does deserve to be in as its one of the BIGGEST empires not to be in the game. This game is about empire building and what other Empire in the early dark ages were as big or bigger than the HRE. If the leader of the France civ were Charles Martel, than I can understand the hate of Charlemange being the HRE leader. But since the France civ seems to be post crussades than it ok for the two to co-exist.

Germany the Civ is mainly the lands of Prussia and some outlining areas from the early 1800s onward. Germany was one of the 5 biggest nations of the 20th century. It was powerful enough to spark 2 world wars and the center piece of the Cold War. The first riegh may have been the HRE but that was not a real german nation, the HRE itself was not defacto Germany until almost 500 years after the death of Charlemange, so it is ok for the two to co-exist.

Yeah, what Perfxion said. That's essentially what I have been getting at with this thread and posts but have not been able to say it as well!

Carolus Magnus, aka Charlemagne, was a Germanic-speaking king of the Franks based in the borderlands of later eastern France and western Germany; he was crowned Emperor by the Pope. Both the kings of France and Germany, the latter of whom was Holy Roman Emperor, dated themselves from him, but he was not called Holy Roman Emperor, but king of the French (or is that the Franks? the medieval words are the same!) and Emperor (of the Romans). It should be remembered that the Romani, or the Romans, were the largest ethnic group in western Europe in Charlemagne's time, and the "French" of the oath of Strasburg was called the "Roman language". It's rather anachronistic to think of him as ruler of Germany rather than France. The Holy Roman Empire is just another word for the medieval kingdom almost everyone referred to as Germany, so he should not be leader of that in Civ 4, assuming adding a second (medieval) German civ is not a joke.

Charlemange was the first leader of the HRE. He was crowned emperor of Rome by the Pope Leo III. The Pope was THE MOST powerful person in Europe at the time and him calling him the next roman Emperor was a way to slap the face of "eastern Rome" and unite the lands of what would be France through half of Poland south to Rome.

It was later dubbed the Holy Roman Empire. So it isn't wrong. The problem people have is that the well written and known HRE is from the 1500 onwards when it was a confederation of mini kingdoms that kept Germany and parts of Poland un-unified. The problem calling him French or German alone is that Germany is named after the style of nomadic tribes from that area: Anglos, Saxons, Celts, Franks, Goths, Normans, Vandals, ect. They all moved west and some came the founding people of some lands.

HRE does deserve to be in as its one of the BIGGEST empires not to be in the game. This game is about empire building and what other Empire in the early dark ages were as big or bigger than the HRE. If the leader of the France civ were Charles Martel, than I can understand the hate of Charlemange being the HRE leader. But since the France civ seems to be post crussades than it ok for the two to co-exist.

Germany the Civ is mainly the lands of Prussia and some outlining areas from the early 1800s onward. Germany was one of the 5 biggest nations of the 20th century. It was powerful enough to spark 2 world wars and the center piece of the Cold War. The first riegh may have been the HRE but that was not a real german nation, the HRE itself was not defacto Germany until almost 500 years after the death of Charlemange, so it is ok for the two to co-exist.

Exactely. The HRE had a very rich and diversified culture and history itself. It is true that this is part of German history, but the HRE is not just a predecessor of Germany, but half of Europe. AND, believe it or not, even French (and other) Kings accepted the titular supremacy of the Emperor well into the 18th century.

The title of Emperor and the legacy of Rome (for which the HRE was the legal vehicle for 1000 years) was so important, that even Napoleon had to get his hands on it somehow (now, don't lecture me that he styled himself 'Emperor of the French').

I had preferred Poland or Austria, but let's now not equal HRE with Germany and get into the petty nationalist debate again (i.e. they should have added Slovenia, not HRE...).

The Holy Roman Empire. It's very name is an oxymoron. Certainly not "Holy", as the Emperors and the Pope often ran afoul of eachother, and the Emperor's engaged in all sorts of sordid practices. Surely not "Roman" either, considering it consisted mostly of parts of modern Germany with bits and pieces of various surrounding countries. And certainly not an "empire." I was under the illusion that Emperor's tended to rule at least some of their empire, but the Holy Roman Emperor typically found himself ignored by any of the local princes who supposedly(but rarely) answered to him. Furthermore, there was no HRE identity. There were Saxons, Swiss, Bohemians, Poles, etc. They never saw themselves as unified. And nothing united them. Not the sword...only the Germans were united by something, and last I checked, we did already have Germany, which means we have a Civ essentially representing fractions of Belgium and Poland. Insignificent ones.

It isn't a civilization. You cannot even put forth an argument that they were distinct, unlike the Byzies. If the HRE is in, I want Manchus, Makedonians, Seleukids, Ptolemaics, Baktrians, Parthians, Timurids, and Xiong Nu. They are all much closer to being civilizations than the HRE.

Exactely. The HRE had a very rich and diversified culture and history itself. It is true that this is part of German history, but the HRE is not just a predecessor of Germany, but half of Europe. AND, believe it or not, even French (and other) Kings accepted the titular supremacy of the Emperor well into the 18th century.


The King of Prussia was actually the vassal of the German Emperor for his lands in Germany. "Prussia" however, where only a minority of that king's lands lay, was not in Germany. The only non-German areas in the HRE, were Kingdoms who were brought into the kingdom dynastically. The Dutch were Germans until the got separated from the Empire. Italy and Burgundy were separate Kingdoms, as was Hungary and arguably Bohemia. When the Kingdom of Prussia was created, it was specifically stated that no-one other than the Emperor could have the status of king in the HRE, so the Elector of Brandenburg was allowed the title "King in Prussia" (which was associated with Poland).


Exactely. The HRE had a very rich and diversified culture and history itself. It is true that this is part of German history, but the HRE is not just a predecessor of Germany, but half of Europe. AND, believe it or not, even French (and other) Kings accepted the titular supremacy of the Emperor well into the 18th century.

The title of Emperor and the legacy of Rome (for which the HRE was the legal vehicle for 1000 years) was so important, that even Napoleon had to get his hands on it somehow (now, don't lecture me that he styled himself 'Emperor of the French').

I had preferred Poland or Austria, but let's now not equal HRE with Germany and get into the petty nationalist debate again (i.e. they should have added Slovenia, not HRE...).

Erm ... the HRE is Germany; that's what everyone then called it. Saying the HRE is not Germany because of some political changes is like saying pre-1789 France is a separate civ from Napoleonic France. Civ after all is supposed to span history. If you accept that the differences in era count as differences in civ, then every semi-important civ will need to have different versions of itself in every era; e.g. Anglo-Saxon England, England, British Empire; there's three for England; in all three cases, if I wanted to I could come up with reasons just as strong to justify separating them. Surely our priority should not be adding a version of every big European power for different eras, but adding important non-European civs (like Khmer, Israel, Abyssinia, etc) and even currently non-represented European civs (e.g. the Magyars, Lithuania, Poland, etc).

Just admit adding the HRE is silly. ;)

I was under the impression that the Charlemange's empire was pretty much the HRE even if it wasn't officially called that.But the same as for the Byzantium.

In answer to the actual question, if people want Charlemagne, he can be added as a third French leader. Of course that's not a perfect solution (I don't need anyone to tell me he was a Germanic ruler ruling from Aachen), but he was rex Francorum. Either that, or use his image for another leader, maybe a Frederick, Otto or Henry as a medieval German leader, or better yet, use his art for an eastern European civ.

There were 2 HREs the first Frankish was founded by Charlemange. The second German one was founded by Otto I. MAny people think Firaxis is trying to represent the German one despite Charlemange being. We'll have to wait until we know what the UU and UB are until we know whether Firaxis is trying to represent the Franks, the Germans, or both. (I would very angry is it was one of the last 2 while I would be pleased if it was the first)

There were 2 HREs the first Frankish was founded by Charlemange. The second German one was founded by Otto I.No, that's wrong. Charlemagne's Empire has never been called "Holy". Actually, it was called "Western Roman Empire" as opposed to the "Eastern Roman Empie" (aka the Byzantine Empire).

What happened is simply that 30 years after Charlemagne's death, his Empire has been divided in three parts to his 3 grand children :
- Francia Occidentalis which evolved into the French Kingdom.
- Francia Orientalis which evolved into the Holy Roman Empire.
- Lotharingia which has been vastly split in parts.

Fundamentally, we can't talk about the French Kingdom or the Holy Roman Empire before the Treaty of Verdun. Both are offshoots of Charlemagne's Empire. Charlemagne is at the roots of both equally, but he has actually ruled none of both.

Charlemagne was a Frankish King, and the only civilization he's really legitimate to rule is the Frankish civilization. Considering him either as a German leader or as a French ruler is a major Historical flaw. And it's not because it was 1,200 years ago that it means we're a nerd if we say so.

The problem being that, unlike "Byzantine Empire", "Holy Roman Empire" has a correct and much more commonly used meaning - and that is for the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, which Charlemagne never ruled.

Frankish Empire or Western Empire would be far more suitable terms for the entity Charlemagne ruled.

There were 2 HREs the first Frankish was founded by Charlemange. The second German one was founded by Otto I. MAny people think Firaxis is trying to represent the German one despite Charlemange being. We'll have to wait until we know what the UU and UB are until we know whether Firaxis is trying to represent the Franks, the Germans, or both. (I would very angry is it was one of the last 2 while I would be pleased if it was the first)

See Oda's post. Charlemagne's dominion was not called the HRE, and should not be called that; only thing that connects both realms is usage of the term Emperor. That's a tenuous, nay spurious connection, since securing that title was due to the power and the intervention of German rulers in Italy centuries later; theoretically, the Pope could have given it to anybody;and in fact the German rulers only secured the title because they were the most powerful rulers in Western Christiandom at the time. Usage by German kings later became fossilized, but don't imagine some kind of real imperial continuity between the German kings and Charlemagne.

I asked this question in a similar thread (as you can imagine, there are a plethora of ones involving Charlemagne/HRE)....is there any chance Firaxis makes the change from HRE to Frankish Empire? There has been rather an uproar....:badcomp:

The big problem is that is hard to find ( new ) civs which :

- existed continuously ( having an organized state, culture and so on ) aproximately on the same regions for thousands of years - probably only Chinese are suitable for this;
- are completely wiped out after reaching a certain level/almost completely wiped out pre-existent populations ( like Babylonians for first category or US for the second ).

Choosing HRE and Bysantium ( but not only - IMHO Romans or Native Americans fell exactely in the same disscusion, even isn't maybe such oblivious at first glance... ;) ) is somehow a compromise between historical significance and actual political status-quo ... :rolleyes:

Just my 2 cents opinion. :)

Regards all

Just one thing, the Franks were not a civilization, but a Germanic Tribe. The HRE is more of a civ than the Frankish one IMO.

The Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, Nor Roman, Nor an Empire. I always liked that quote. I dont think the HRE fits into civilization in my opinion. Its more of a region, as some people have pointed out the diverse areas that are included. I dont think of it as a cohesive, singular unit, as much as an area that the popes used to grant a figurehead like status to certain leaders.

However, Im not too knowledgeable of the area. I was a history major and I preferred Soviet history, so its just my opinion, not so much historical fact.

But I do know that germanic tribes and Germany is far from being the same thing.

No, that's wrong. Charlemagne's Empire has never been called "Holy". Actually, it was called "Western Roman Empire" as opposed to the "Eastern Roman Empie" (aka the Byzantine Empire).

The term "Holy Roman Empire" was first used during the reign of Barborosa. I am aware that it was orrigianally "Western Roman Empire." When Otto I fot the title "Emperor of the West" he was getting the same title as Charlemagne got. It wasn't that it became a different country, just it got a new name. The term "Holy Roman Empire" is commonly used to describe the Empire of Charlemagne and the Empire of the German Emperors before Barborosa. It is an "updated" term since it would be inaccurate to describe it as "Western Roman Empire."

Just one thing, the Franks were not a civilization, but a Germanic Tribe. The HRE is more of a civ than the Frankish one IMO.The Franks were indeed initially a Germanic tribe which was divided between various rulers. However, Clovis united it as one kingdom. The thing is that Germanic rulers remained culturally Germanic whereas their subjects were mainly Latin christians. The Franks actually converted to christianism.

Anyway, I doubt we can really call the Holy Roman Empire a civilization as it's more the name of a political entity than anything else. The cultural civilization of the Holy Roman Empire was actually German, and hence is already represented in the game. The Franks were initially Germanic but their culture has got merged with the one of the locals... but the resulte of such merger is actually the French civilization, which is also represented in the game.

Somehow, I would still consider more the Franks as a civilization than the HRE essentially for the reason that Franks is actually the name of a people, whereas the name of the people ruled by the HRE has always been... the Germans.

The cultural entity of Germany already in the game is clearly the modern one, in its leaders, UU and UB; and is somewhat different than the medieval one. So I have nothing against having another one representing M.A., especially since if I understood correctly it's been designed for a scenario. According to your reasoning, Celts should have never been added because later on they evolved in different civs.

The term "Holy Roman Empire" was first used during the reign of Barborosa. I am aware that it was orrigianally "Western Roman Empire." When Otto I fot the title "Emperor of the West" he was getting the same title as Charlemagne got.Great then, he got the same title. Well, that title of "Western Roman Empire" actually existed before Charlemagne. It initially resulted from the division of the Roman Empire by Diocletian in 286 AD. The Eastern Roman Empire being what we commonly call the Byzantine Empire. So then, if we link the HRE to the Carolingian Empire, then we should also link it to the WRE which had officially fallen in 496 AD !

Anyway, the Carolingian Empire was fundamentally Frankish. It has very thin ties with the Holy Roman Empire, fundamentally German, which reached its peak at the high Middle Ages.

It wasn't that it became a different country, just it got a new name. The term "Holy Roman Empire" is commonly used to describe the Empire of Charlemagne and the Empire of the German Emperors before Barborosa. It is an "updated" term since it would be inaccurate to describe it as "Western Roman Empire."Well, then, History is taught differently in different countries since I've absolutely never heard the Carolingian empire being called the Holy Roman Empire. Never. In France, Charlemagne's Empire is called the Carolingian Empire (Empire Carolingien), or the Western Empire (Empire d'Occident). However, the French name of the HRE is "Saint Empire Romain Germanique" (German Holy Roman Empire). As you can see, they are rather different. Maybe in Italian they are named the same way, I don't know, but objectively speaking, the ties are still extremely thin between both. We can decently consider the HRE as one of the heir of the Carolingian Empire... but we can hardly say it's one and the same.

The cultural entity of Germany already in the game is clearly the modern one, in its leaders, UU and UB; and is somewhat different than the medieval one. So I have nothing against having another one representing M.A., especially since if I understood correctly it's been designed for a scenario. According to your reasoning, Celts should have never been added because later on they evolved in different civs.The Celts have indeed evolved into different peoples, but the people living in the HRE have always been called Germans.

And if you consider that the medieval Germany isn't represented by the Germans, then I wish a French Republic civilization with De Gaulle or Clémenceau as leader. ;)

The Celts have indeed evolved into different peoples, but the people living in the HRE have always been called Germans.

And if you consider that the medieval Germany isn't represented by the Germans, then I wish a French Republic civilization with De Gaulle or Clémenceau as leader. ;)
And I want Ptolemaic Egypt. Oh, and Sassanid Persia...

Just one thing, the Franks were not a civilization, but a Germanic Tribe. The HRE is more of a civ than the Frankish one IMO.

Which is correct. And at its beginning, the HRE was indeed an unified empire with no hereditary vassals.