Hypothetically, in a situation in which the HRE wasn't in the game but the Charlemagne leader head was still included, which nation would you have in, France or Germany?
(The poll assumes that it would be possible to make him available for both civs, although obviously not both in the same game.)

Options:
1 - Preferably both, but I'd settle for France
2 - Preferably both, but I'd settle for Germany
3 - Both or neither
4 - France only
5 - Germany only
6 - Neither- the Holy Roman Empire is the only one that can properly represent him
7 - None- I'd rather see him removed altogether

Personally, I'd go for option one- he had a big role in the foundation of both nations, but I think he's more closely associated with France. After all, he was King of the Franks, and we know him by his French title "Charlemagne", rather than just "Charles the Great".

Both would be best, HRE is the only alternative. And since you can mix and match leaders and civs, it has to be HRE.

Oh great, because there weren't enough polls about the Holy Roman Empire....

Both

Although no one would want to play as him as he has the weakest traits in the game! :shake:

*cough* How did you manage to come up with 7 different poll options and still do without the Franks?

Or am I the only one who thinks that the Franks might be a fitting civ for a, well, Frankish king ..? :)

Oh great, because there weren't enough polls about the Holy Roman Empire....
Yeah, I know that the forum is a little over-crowded with those things, but this isn't mean to be another pointless HRE/Poland squabble, I'm actually asking a genuine question here, and one which I think has merit.

*cough* How did you manage to come up with 7 different poll options and still do without the Franks?

Or am I the only one who thinks that the Franks might be a fitting civ for a, well, Frankish king ..? :)

I agree with you, the Franks would be good a civ if were added... (Maybe instead of France)

Since the Franks were a Germanic tribe, I choose option 2. As far as I know he wasn't leader of the HRE, but he does deserve a place in civ.
Like I mentioned in another thread, for me it would be best if you have a "pool" of unaffiliated leaders, like Attila and Charlemagne and that when you choose the option to select any leader for any civ, you can choose them.
But Charlemagne being a leader of Germany would just as well.

Firaxis made the decision though, and I don't mind the outcome.

I abstain. He should have been included as the Frankish civilization. No DeGaulle. Then you have 2 German leader, 2 French Leaders, and One hybrid pre-existing civ.

*cough* How did you manage to come up with 7 different poll options and still do without the Franks?

Or am I the only one who thinks that the Franks might be a fitting civ for a, well, Frankish king ..? :)
But the Frankish kingdoms were the forerunners of France, hence the name. Adding a Frankish civ would be like, in my opinion, adding an Anglo-Saxon civ- we don't need France and Francia in the same game anymore than we need England and Anglia.

Clearly the solution to all of these problems is to remove France from the game. Then the Franks can be added and de Gaulle and the HRE can be removed. France is not needed for the WWII scenario, so nothing is lost.

Well, I guess Louis and Napoleon are lost. But Napoleon can be added as a leader of the European Union (along with AH), once that Civ gets added. Louis we'll just have to forget about or make him a leader of Louisiana or Quebec (when the US States and Canadian Provinces are added as civs).

We're lacking a Civilization/Leader roadmap. Let's get to work on it before Civ V gets too far along in development.

But the Frankish kingdoms were the forerunners of France, hence the name. Adding a Frankish civ would be like, in my opinion, adding an Anglo-Saxon civ- we don't need France and Francia in the same game anymore than we need England and Anglia.

I agree that we don't need a Frankish civ. Still, in a poll that asks "Which nation should Charlemagne be the leader for?", a Frankish Civ would be my obvious choice. In my opinion, he was a Frankish king and should lead, if any, a Frankish civ.

However, your poll doesn't give me an option to express that opinion. I could only choose "both or neither" (which I won't because "both" wouldn't be a good option imho), or "neither, only the HRE can represent him" (which I obviously can't choose either, since I think that the Franks represent him better as any HRE could). Hence, I feel left out by your poll.

Side note: You may or may not be aware that the idea of the Franks being the forerunners of (only) France might be seen quite controversial ... and your terminological arguments seem to neglect such details as the continuous appearance of the name "Franken" in Germany (as a group of people as well as an area), or the fact that Charles is in fact only known by his German name here. But I don't really want to get into this discussion because I'd have to play advocatus diaboli then, personally I think that the cultural tug-of-war about who's the "real" heir of Charles is a bit ridiculous. I just wanted to mention that the situation probably isn't as clear-cut as it apparently seems to you.

I would prefer both but France has three leaders already so Ill settle for Germany.

guinea bisseau

The Franks were a Germanic people and had the same history (same gods, same assimilation, same wars) as the other Germanic tribes. They lived around the Rhine. The Holy Roman Empire ultimately became centered around modern Germany.

"Neither- the Holy Roman Empire is the only one which properly reprents him"
Yepp, sounds right to me...even though I really think he was more of a Frenchmen, whatever...

And eighth option could be "have him as a Stand Alone Leader"

At least the Franks weren't French yet. Holy Romans were generally Germans culturally, ethnically, and linguistically...

At least the Franks weren't French yet. Holy Romans were generally Germans culturally, ethnically, and linguistically...

And Genetically.

Has anyone noticed how pathetic is Charlemagne's biography ?

I think that it's the first time I ever see a biography of Charlemagne that doesn't mention the Franks and that doesn't mention the Treaty of Verdun !

That biography is pure revisionism from Firaxis... just as if the Western half of the Carolingian Empire never existed.

Neither- the Holy Roman Empire is the only one which properly reprents him

Neither- the Holy Roman Empire is the only one which properly reprents himCould you explain me how ? Talking about the Holy Roman Empire at the time of Charlemagne is an anachronism.

Charlemagne has ruled the Frankish Empire. Both the French Kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire have resulted from the division of the Frankish Empire in 843 AD.

France- that the Franks were a Germanic people was largly a technicality by the Point old Charly came along, since the Franks had already had a very long history of not only latinizing themselves more then usual amoung the other major Germanic peoples, and sooner then any of the rest, other then perhaps the Goths, but after and during the conquest of Gual you see a synthesis and merging of the Frankish and local Roman ruling classes (which is ofcourse the reason why the Frankish realm was more stable then their Gothic counterparts in Spain, and why France is France instead of Frankland)

So Germany isnt a good fit for charly, so it has to be france.

and like an idiot... I vote for the wrong option.

Both of them, as both France and Germany descends from parts of the Frankish empire of Charlemagne, but if it has to be one, then France, as that is the one he is more commonly associated with in the RoW.

Well, to be honest, both France and Germany would have formed with or without Charlemagne- the cultural roots were already there, Charly merely played an interesting role in bringing them together for a period of time.

But when you get down to it, Charlemagne biggest effects were actually expanding a "proto-french" influence over germany- that is, Latin Christianity, and all which that entailed, which was one of the biggest motivators (or, depending on how optimisitic about humanity the reader might be today, excuses) for expanding the Frankish realm into the German hinterlands.

The biggest reason why Charlemange is considered German is because of his ethnicity- which is really just a very sketchy thing when dealing about most people born in Western Europe in that period of time, but regardless is secondary to what Charlemagne would have thought of himself as [which so far as i know was not "german") and that the HRE lived on in germany, and not France...

but since the foundations of France predate the HRE, I'll put forward the thought that France essentially formed the HRE, and then broke out of it (and fittingly, brought it to an end under Napoleon as well)

I think Charlemagne has name recognition and is a reasonable approximation of the sort of hazy medieval European civilisation/political identity represented more by Church than specific ethnicity or feudal political affiliation. If we're reading the HRE in that broader sense, Charlemagne is the obvious leader, if not a Pope.

IMO, the HRE makes more sense than Germany or France as civs being lead by Charlemagne.

Germanic =/= Germany
Frankish =/= French

Well no it doesn't.It is your opinion, so i'm not going to debate it.

But a solution is to have Charlemagne as a stand alone leader and with the mix and match option, people could have him as part of Germany, or France, or for Rome for all i care.

Besides i didn't even know who this guy was untill i heard of him in the game. I don't see how important he was anyway.

The HRE is basically a sucessor state to the Frankish Empire, whereas France and Germany are culturally related modern states, but still distinct enough to be their own civs. Again, Germanic =/= German, Frankish =/= French.

Says the one who wants Poland in the game.

Charlemagne is one of the most important figures of western europe, and probably the most important medieval one. He DOES deserve to be in the game.

And arguing is fun :D (not a pointless argument, a fight, a productive argument, a debate).

To me this is pointless arguing. I've Debated the over and over again for what seems like centuries. :crazyeye:

whoops. never mind. my bad.

Lol. Well, I guess I could let the matter rest for now (unless someone else makes an argument).

And pointless argument (a fight) is only that in my book if people start using insults. And only if it goes both ways.

Maybe they could have split him into two leaders, like those great Calvin and Hobbes comic strips with the Replicator, and called one of them Karl der Grose. Charlemagne's capital could be Aix du Chapelle, and Karl der Grose's capital could be Aachen. There would be something distinctly Freudian about wars between France and Germany, then, if each country was being led by its Charles-the-Great.

Or, alternately, they could make Charlemagne head of the Holy Roman Empire. That works too.

Besides i didn't even know who this guy was untill i heard of him in the game. I don't see how important he was anyway.
So, you didn't know about one of the most significant leaders in European history, and yet we're all expected to be experts on Polish history? Hardly seems fair to me, especially considering that Germany and France are rather important nations- both in the past and today- while Poland is, frankly, not.

Charlemagne was a noble and good king - okay, who knows, but he was an important figure in European history, and he is one of those "great/famous leaders" whom i thought would deserve a place in the game (though their civs would not necessarily), along with Al-Harun Rashid (whatever his name was), Akbar, Attila the Hun, Simon Bolivar, etc.


Hardly seems fair to me, especially considering that Germany and France are rather important nations- both in the past and today- while Poland is, frankly, not.

heh heh. wonder what the Poles would think of this.

I expect that they'll feverently deny it, and back this up with a map of Lithuania in the 15th century... :rolleyes:

or Kielbasa. which is a better claim. :)

but i think Winged Cavalry look awesome. they have wings. but they can't compare to the glory of the Kataphraktoi, though...

Germanic =/= Germany
Frankish =/= French

Yes but Frankish=Germanic (as a subcategory).

I like the Sausage King's idea about Charlemagne as a standalone leader, actually I think Civ V should be based totally on standalone leaders instead of civs.

Yes but Frankish=Germanic (as a subcategory).
Exactly. But there is no Germanic civ.

Plus English = Germanic and German = Germanic. If they had a germanic civ, splitting those would be ridiculous.

Exactly. But there is no Germanic civ.

Plus English = Germanic and German = Germanic. If they had a germanic civ, splitting those would be ridiculous.


Point taken and actuallt there are more germanic civs, Vikings, Dutch, American (at least in part) and of course HRE.

Yeah, that's why there shouldn't be a Germanic civ. It's too broad.

but i think Winged Cavalry look awesome. they have wings. but they can't compare to the glory of the Kataphraktoi, though...

the Winged Hussar can beat a Kataphraktoi any day ;)

Hardly seems fair to me, especially considering that Germany and France are rather important nations- both in the past and today- while Poland is, frankly, not.

I'm not saying Polands better then France, But germany hasn't even been a state for 200 years! Poland's been a state for over 1000 and was a nation for 3000 years!

I expect that they'll feverently deny it, and back this up with a map of Lithuania in the 15th century...

The Lithuanian Inhabited lands were part of the commonwealth. But they were extremely poor etc. Poland came along and revolutionized Lithuania, introduced polish language, and basically modernized Lithuania to the respective time.

I like the Sausage King's idea about Charlemagne as a standalone leader, actually I think Civ V should be based totally on standalone leaders instead of civs.

Khan not king ;)

I'm not saying Polands better then France, But germany hasn't even been a state for 200 years! Poland's been a state for over 1000 and was a nation for 3000 years!

Excuse me but are you claiming that Poland is more important than Germany? :lol:

Anyway, you lost a lot of credit when you claimed that Charlemagne probably was an unimportant leader because you didn't know him... :crazyeye:

1st of all, I never said that Poland's more important then germany.

Second of all, i never studied, or even looked at that time period. Nothing going on was interesting in europe at that time. People are dieing from black death, Muslim invaders, Mongol Invaders, nothing really that interesting. Other then the Crusades. And i read the history about the Crusades from the Arabic point of view. Much more interesting.

And i never said that Charlemagne wasn't an important leader.

1st of all, I never said that Poland's more important then germany.

I'm not saying Polands better then France, But germany hasn't even been a state for 200 years! Poland's been a state for over 1000 and was a nation for 3000 years!

In the second post you certainly imply that Poland is more important than Germany because it existed longer.

Second of all, i never studied, or even looked at that time period. Nothing going on was interesting in europe at that time. People are dieing from black death, Muslim invaders, Mongol Invaders, nothing really that interesting. Other then the Crusades. And i read the history about the Crusades from the Arabic point of view. Much more interesting.

Regardless, pretty much everyone knows who was Charlemagne. At least everybody in the Western world.

And i never said that Charlemagne wasn't an important leader.

Oh really? You said:

Besides i didn't even know who this guy [Charlemagne] was untill i heard of him in the game. I don't see how important he was anyway.

You are contradicting yourself constantly.

In the second post you certainly imply that Poland is more important than Germany because it existed longer.

I said it existed longer, i didn't say it was more important

Regardless, pretty much everyone knows who was Charlemagne. At least everybody in the Western world.

So i'm the exception, who cares?

And yes i guess i did contradict myself. :(

I expect that they'll feverently deny it, and back this up with a map of Lithuania in the 15th century... :rolleyes:


The Lithuanian Inhabited lands were part of the commonwealth. But they were extremely poor etc. Poland came along and revolutionized Lithuania, introduced polish language, and basically modernized Lithuania to the respective time.



:lol: :lol: :lol:




Now to get back to the original topic; I think that the HRE represents him very well, even thought it was only only created after his death. But to add a seperate Frankish/Germanic civ would be ludicruous. However, if for some reason the HRE was removed, then I would rather seem him as a French Leader, not because of any deep Historical reasons, but thats because most people associate him with France.

Poland wasn't a nation for 3000 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland#Prehistory
The first historically documented Leader was in 966 A.D. Poland and Lithuania's "Golden Age" lasted about 150 years, max. Even then, it was never as powerful as France, Britain, or Spain. Germany's "Golden Age" lasted maybe 150 years, max, but it was more powerful than France, and Britain (at least on land...)

the Winged Hussar can beat a Kataphraktoi any day ;)

oh really... the Ktaphraktoi get +100% bonus points for being the descendants of Rome military, +100% for being all glorious and epiclike...


Regardless, pretty much everyone knows who was Charlemagne. At least everybody in the Western world.

even people like ME in the Eastern-Western world know him! :)

If you're going to put everyone who is remotely German (like Charlemagne) in the German Empire you might as well put all the French, Dutch, and English rulers (ESPECIALLY Victoria) in the German Empire.

Having him as part of the French Empire on the other hand seems slightly better but I don't think it would be entirely accurate - can't really comment on that.

Charlemagne may not have ruled the Holy Roman Empire (of the Germans) but he certainly was the archetypical Holy Roman Emperor.

And if you think the HRE pushes the limit on how much "German-ish" culture can be stuffed into a Civ game, think about how German Victoria and Catherine already are. This addition really isn't so bad :D.

Poland wasn't a nation for 3000 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland#Prehistory
The first historically documented Leader was in 966 A.D. Poland and Lithuania's "Golden Age" lasted about 150 years, max. Even then, it was never as powerful as France, Britain, or Spain. Germany's "Golden Age" lasted maybe 150 years, max, but it was more powerful than France, and Britain (at least on land...)

Yes but they believe Polish people were living in poland for over 3000 years. <long enough time to evolve language etc. I don't know if the right word is Nation, but still. And Poland had kings for centuries before, it's just that the first recorded leader was Miesko.

Yes but they believe Polish people were living in poland for over 3000 years. <long enough time to evolve language etc. I don't know if the right word is Nation, but still.
Neatly forgetting that most of the region was, at the time, inhabited largely by Germanic, Celtic and Baltic tribes, and the Slavs were only dominant in the very East of modern Poland until the late Migration Period, around 400-600AD, and at the time still spoke a proto-Slavic dialect. Not only were they not Polish, most were not even proto-Polish, as the term "Pole" comes from the name of the Polans tribe which would come to dominate the region in the late 8th century.
In short, Poland =/= 3,000 years old. 1,500, tops, and that's really no older than England or France.

It was postulated that throughout Late Antiquity, many distinct ethnic groups populated the regions of what is now known as Poland. The exact ethnicity and linguistic affiliation of these groups was hotly debated. Many Slavic, Celtic, Baltic and Germanic tribes were among the prominent groups. The politically charged discussion on the origins of the Slavs; historically two partially opposing views are held: allochtonic or autochtonic. The purely allochtonic view is historic and has no scholar defending it, many scholars now tend toward an autochtonic view, the most radical of which is the theory of Paleolithic continuity. [3]
The most famous archeological find from the Poland's prehistory is the Biskupin fortified settlement, dating from the Lusatian culture of the early Iron Age, around 700 BC.
[edit]Piast dynasty
Poland began to form into a recognizable unitary and territorial entity around the middle of the tenth century under the Piast dynasty. Poland's first historically documented ruler, Mieszko I, was baptized in 966, adopting Catholic Christianity as the nation's new official religion, to which the bulk of the population converted in the course of the next centuries. In the twelfth century, Poland fragmented into several smaller states, which were later ravaged by the Mongol armies of the Golden Horde in 1241, 1259 and 1287. In 1320, Władysław I became the King of a reunified Poland. His son, Casimir III, is remembered as one of the greatest Polish kings.
Poland was also a centre of migration of peoples and the Jewish community began to settle and flourish in Poland during this era (see History of the Jews in Poland). The Black Death which affected most parts of Europe from 1347 to 1351 did not reach Poland.[4]

Fight some more please...:lol:...I'm to lazy to try to read this sh#t but you guys can still argue over it! :goodjob:

in my big huge National Geographic Atlas, on the little entry on Poland, this is what it says about the Polish origins (something like this):

"The Polish originated from some Slavic tribe who came to the area they were called [something i forgot, sounds like Poland] which meant plains dweller."


now, on another historiy book, it says that the first known records of the Slavs come from c.600 AD (the Byzantine records, no doubt). apparently, because the Slavs already had some form of organization, it was concluded that they had been in the area for a few centuries and been developing. the problem is, where do the Slavs come from? various early peoples of the area had been suggested - the Scythians, Sarmatians, Balts, Vendai, Anadui, "Scythian Farmers", Cimmerians, and so on, but there has been no conclusive evidence.

um. i have no idea what i said.

now back to Charly.

^*Charlie* hehe...
I think he's actually pretty cool...

Charlemagne was a frank - but he conquered the territory of modern germany and was corronated as the first kaiser (holy roman emperor). Thus, Charlemagne CREATED the HRE and deserves to be the HRE leader. Once he was crowned, he ceased to be a Frankish leader and became the leader of the HRE.

Charlemagne can only be an HRE leader as a result - in much the same way that Genghis Khan is the Mongolian leader for unifying Mongolia and conquering the near east, Charlemagne conquered the Germanic states and unified that plus his Frankish holdovers into the HRE.

It doesn't work to have Charlemagne as a good choice for the French because Vikings settled in Normandy (thus the name), intermarry with the locals and in 1066 conquer England at the Battle of Hastings - Charlemagne was corronated Kaiser in 800, so in only 4-5 generations the Franks split off from the HRE and formed the Norman Feudal French and their vassal of England. Thus the feudal (1100-1400) French are NOT "Franks" or "Charlemange's kin", but an intermarried culture Scandinavians and Franks. Charlemange's legacy is the HRE, not the French who splintered away from his rule. As many of these threads have established (and rightly so) - the HRE had a difficult time keeping their lords in line which was their downfall.

Charlemagne was a frank - but he conquered the territory of modern germany and was corronated as the first kaiser (holy roman emperor).
That's deceptive language- you're using the term "Kaiser" as if it was actually applied to Charlemagne, which it wasn't. He was crowned by the Latin title "Imperator"- Emperor- much closer to the French "Empereur". "Kaiser", on the other hand, is a later German adaption of the Latin "Caesar", and was never used in Charlemagne's day. In short, if we're going by titles then there's a much stronger argument for putting him in as a French leader.

Thus, Charlemagne CREATED the HRE and deserves to be the HRE leader. Once he was crowned, he ceased to be a Frankish leader and became the leader of the HRE.
Except it was never the Holy Roman Empire, it was just the Frankish Empire and only Pope crowned him "Imperator Augustus". The term "Roman Empire" was never used until 1034, "Holy Empire" was not used until 1157 and the combined name of "Holy Roman Empire" was not used until 1254 (later to be given the addition "of the German Nation" in 1512).

All this may sound like me just being pedantic, but it's not- I'm highlighting the quite accurate fact that Charlemagne did not found the Holy Roman Empire and was not Holy Roman Emperor, and so the idea of him being the leader of a Holy Roman civ is anachronistic and innacurate.

okay... here is what one of my reliable general history books said (had it since i was seven) about Charlie:

-" 800 [AD] - Charlemagne is crowned Emperor of the West by Pope [...]"

- "[...] when the Pope crowned him [Charlie] Holy Roman emperor [...]"

- "[...] the Holy Roman empire that he [Charlie] founded lasted in one form or another until 1806."


Charlemagne was crowned as a sucessor to the Western Roman Empire - and to the Eastern Romans/Byzantines, this was complete outrage. some little barbarian "rat" just became their equals...

however, simply because he was mentioned as being crowned the Holy Roman Emperor does not mean that he was called the Holy Roman Emperor at the time. this is a case similar to that which occured throughout Chinese history.

we can take an example from the infamous Three Kingdoms. Cao Cao was sometimes referred to as the "Founder of the [Cao Dynasty - or whatever they called themselves as sucessor of the Han]", and was listed as a first Emperor of the "Wei". however, Cao Cao actually died before the Wei usurped the Han, so there is no way he could've actually been the emperor.

hope someone understands that...

I think a better example is the fact that that the Stuart monarchs were monarchs of what is now Britain, but never held the title of King of Britain. The Cao Cao example is to wrapped up in the politics of the Han puppet-emperor, Cao Cao's regency, etc, this example is closer to Charlemagne's case in that the territory ruled was similar, and the difference was primarily in the title.

^right, you have a point. but maybe because of this situation, that is why Charlemagne is leader of the "Holy Romans"...

well, I suppose you can say that Carolus Magnus was the 1st Holy Roman Emperor in the same way that Julius Caesar was the 1st Roman Emperor (not a perfect analogy, but then again....).

Augustus's legal name when he was adopted by Gaius Julius Caesar became Gaius Julius Caesar, so it is quite easy to make the claim that Julius was the first emperor. ;)

Anyway, the decision that Augustus was the first emperor is pretty arbitrary anyway, since the title Imperator merely means commander and had been used of military generals for centuries. Of course, both Caesar and Augustus are also often translated as emperor. Both Caesars had the exact same positions, except that Augustus was given the purely honorary titles Augustus and Princeps.

p.s. the German word Kaiser is pronounced the way that the Romans pronounced Caesar.

okay, i have a better Chinese-related example. you may need to do a wikipedia search.

around c.900 AD, some Khitan guy, Abaoji, united all the Khitan tribes; the Khitan were a Mongolian peoples who lived, obviously, north of CHina.

anyhow, Abaoji did this and that, reforms, institutions, sinicization, blah blah blah, and then he died.

later, one or two generations later, his children founded the Liao Dynasty, and declared Abaoji its first emperor, even though Abaoji did not create the Liao dynasty itself.

there, a better analogy to Charlemagne and the HRE.

Yeah, that's a pretty good comparison. The point, I guess, is that Charlemagne effectively held the position but not the title later associated with it, until it was retroactively applied to him- he ruled what would become the Holy Roman Empire, but was never actually Holy Roman Emperor.
Whether or not this should effect his inclusion as a leader for the HRE is really down to how much you value historical accuracy in the game.