BTS FALLACY - Charlemagne has NEVER ruled the Holy Roman Empire !

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).



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.

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)

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.

You forgot option 4: they don't care, and will release it as is.

ChrTh said:

You forgot option 4: they don't care, and will release it as is.

Click to expand...

And get tons of angry fan mail.

TheLastOne36 said:

And get tons of angry fan mail.

Click to expand...

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?

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..

ChrTh said:

Hannibal never ruled Carthage, and Gandhi never ruled India.

Click to expand...

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 !

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."

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!"

Marla_Singer said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

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.

ChrTh said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

ChrTh said:

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.

Click to expand...

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".

ChrTh said:

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)

Click to expand...

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

Maybe they could add Charlemagne as a leader but not afflilate him with any civ?

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.

The damage Firaxis did is done and I don't think they will undo it.

Thrallia said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

And Joan of Arc never ruled France, but that didn't stop her from being in Civ 3.