Why no Charlemagne?
- Thread starter Zaimejs
- Start date
c4c6
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2016
- Messages
- 462
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
almughavar
Political commissar
Yeah, I still remember the first civ I used when playing Civ 4: Beyond The Sword was HRE led by Charlemagne.
iammaxhailme
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,999
Basil from Constantinople plays pretty much exactly how I'd have Charlemange play, except maybe Charlemange wouldn't have a naval unit.
Aurelesk
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 582
Charlemagne is a tricky leader to add. Because it is neither a French one, nor a German one, nor a Roman one. Because there is no France nor Germany yet, and do not talk about the Roman part...
He was the King of the Franks (a germanic tribe), invaded most of the western/central Europe and found the Carolingian Empire. There would be a partition of that empire in 2 parts: the western part that will become France, and the eastern part that will become the Holy Roman Empire then Germany (well 3 parts, but I am shortening). Both nations still consider to be the heir of Charlemagne empire: France througth the Capetian dynasty, and Germany througth the Holy Roman Empire. One thing is certain: Charlemagne is the "Father of Europe".
I guess you could make it a dual leader for France and Germany, but it will make as much sense than creating a European Union civilization and put him as the leader.
Charlemagne lead Francia, the Kingdom o the Franks, or Frankland, or the Frankish Empire. Would they dare to add a new civilization when we have Gaul, France (×3 leaders), Rome and Germany? Sure the Byzantine would have not loved that! And what language should he speaks? Reconstructed Gaulish with a huge french accent? Vulgar latin? Old franconian?
From gameplay perspective, Charlemagne was a Warrior King, protector of the faith, and promotor of the arts (→ Carolingian Renaissance). As said by @iammaxhailme this would probably lead to be played the same Basil do (domination, but with some faith/culture), but there is still room to come up with something interesting.
He was the King of the Franks (a germanic tribe), invaded most of the western/central Europe and found the Carolingian Empire. There would be a partition of that empire in 2 parts: the western part that will become France, and the eastern part that will become the Holy Roman Empire then Germany (well 3 parts, but I am shortening). Both nations still consider to be the heir of Charlemagne empire: France througth the Capetian dynasty, and Germany througth the Holy Roman Empire. One thing is certain: Charlemagne is the "Father of Europe".
I guess you could make it a dual leader for France and Germany, but it will make as much sense than creating a European Union civilization and put him as the leader.
Charlemagne lead Francia, the Kingdom o the Franks, or Frankland, or the Frankish Empire. Would they dare to add a new civilization when we have Gaul, France (×3 leaders), Rome and Germany? Sure the Byzantine would have not loved that! And what language should he speaks? Reconstructed Gaulish with a huge french accent? Vulgar latin? Old franconian?
From gameplay perspective, Charlemagne was a Warrior King, protector of the faith, and promotor of the arts (→ Carolingian Renaissance). As said by @iammaxhailme this would probably lead to be played the same Basil do (domination, but with some faith/culture), but there is still room to come up with something interesting.
Last edited:
Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
I don't see it happening for Civ 6, but I could definitely see the possibilities of a Frankish civ in Civ VII if they decided to go that route considering they were able to squeeze a Gaul civ in between France and Germany for this game.
All they have to do instead in Civ 7 is make a Briton/Iceni civ, with also Ireland, as representing the Celts and that would leave open a possible Frankish civ on mainland Europe.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
There is a Mod that includes Charlemagne as Leader for either Germany or France, and it isn't bad given the restraints that mean you cant have him lead both in the same game!
Charlemagne's real problem is the same one Alexander had: they both represent 'civilizations' that didn't outlast their own lifetimes by more than a few years. The Roman Empire that Charley was trying to revive had the advantage that being a Roman Citizen came with such advantages that it outweighed being a Spaniard, Gaul, Greek, Italian, etc., so that 'The Empire' held the allegiance of a very mixed population for a long time. Charlemagne couldn't set up a such over-riding and attractive allegiances, so as soon as he died East Francia became German, West Francia became Proto-French, and the whole thing fell apart.
- And while he was technically the first Holy Roman Emperor, by the time the Holy Roman Empire was more than a legal fiction again, it almost completely excluded France and the center of its power base had moved east, into the Osterreich (Austria). That makes equating Charlemagne with the HRE somewhat problematic, IMHO.
Oh, and there is also a Mod available for Clovis as an Alternate Leader for France, which covers the Frank connection pretty well, again given the constraints that much of the iv's Uniques are based on much later French rather than Frankish attributes.
Charlemagne's real problem is the same one Alexander had: they both represent 'civilizations' that didn't outlast their own lifetimes by more than a few years. The Roman Empire that Charley was trying to revive had the advantage that being a Roman Citizen came with such advantages that it outweighed being a Spaniard, Gaul, Greek, Italian, etc., so that 'The Empire' held the allegiance of a very mixed population for a long time. Charlemagne couldn't set up a such over-riding and attractive allegiances, so as soon as he died East Francia became German, West Francia became Proto-French, and the whole thing fell apart.
- And while he was technically the first Holy Roman Emperor, by the time the Holy Roman Empire was more than a legal fiction again, it almost completely excluded France and the center of its power base had moved east, into the Osterreich (Austria). That makes equating Charlemagne with the HRE somewhat problematic, IMHO.
Oh, and there is also a Mod available for Clovis as an Alternate Leader for France, which covers the Frank connection pretty well, again given the constraints that much of the iv's Uniques are based on much later French rather than Frankish attributes.
Not so long ago, they discussed him as a leader for Russia.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...izations-thread.657838/page-423#post-15927630
There are three entities which should be staple in this game (maybe not in every game but always Considered)
1) Franks of Charlemagne, maybe sometimes Charles Martel
2) Italy (either as united modern entity or "Greek treatment" of city state blend)
3) Moors (By that I mean Al - Andalus or Maghreb)
At least Franks actually got once. But I weep and weep upon reminding myself that Canada and Australia got into the game before proper Italy and Moors.
1) Franks of Charlemagne, maybe sometimes Charles Martel
2) Italy (either as united modern entity or "Greek treatment" of city state blend)
3) Moors (By that I mean Al - Andalus or Maghreb)
At least Franks actually got once. But I weep and weep upon reminding myself that Canada and Australia got into the game before proper Italy and Moors.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
Any leader can be added, because no state was created as represented in Civilization games.
Civilization the game is basically a Manifest-Destiny-esque representation of history.
Civilization the game is basically a Manifest-Destiny-esque representation of history.
The Civs 6
King
- Joined
- May 27, 2020
- Messages
- 782
The dark ages don't get a lot of love in modern popular history. he was a bad enough dude that he got to assert that he was Caesar, and in an era where the Roman Empire was still existing, enough people bought it (or had to buy it) that it stuck. he was also probably responsible for a lot of christianization of Europe (though that's just offhand knowledge), and for re-creating state-based authority in western europe for the first time in about 500 years. arguably the franks under charlemagne, at least on a regional level, were more powerful compared to their peers than at any point in the future. for similar reasons i also feel like England has been poorly served by never having been lead by William the Conqueror, but that's another thread.
Just gotta restate my bafflement at how France got 2 leaders and neither of them were named Napoleon, Louis or Charlemagne. i guess someone had to get screwed to meet the quota, but they did it the the nation that probably has three of the most important (male) leaders in world history. couldn't they just have given Germany Merkel instead of giving them one of Charlemagne's less awesome successors?
I'm sure France is headed by Catherine, because someone must have the ability to spy. Ekaterina for this seems to me the best option for Vanilla. And Eleanor of Aquitaine is an excellent leader for two civilizations.
With all the deservedness of Peter I or Catherine II, I would like it not for them to lead Russia in Civ 7
I've made a mod for him, you can have a french version or a german version.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1580369598
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1647124021
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 862
For Louis, I agree that a lot of Louis are great, but I would have prefered Louis XI or even Louis XVI rather than Louis XIV. He was just a megalomaniac that built a big castle and ruined the kingdom... His reign is already represented in the Grand Tour CUA, so having him again would feel redundant.
As for Napoleon... Please, can we stop asking for him? The guy was a bloody dictator that basically destroyed French culture. A military genius, a intelligent administrator and a surprisingly acute mathematician (there is some theroems named after him) but can we stop asking for representation for France with him? Seriously, in France, Napoleon is more and more tied with alt-right groups, dreaming of a time where France was "great" and are just hegemonists and supremacists. Also, Napoléon is the reason why French people have more chance than any other country to suffer from varicose veins (because he didn't want men with varicose veins in his army, he lost so many men that the one left were the ones not in his army, so with varicose veins), and when you put the your people future health at risk like that, you have no right to be praised. Gengis Khan reduced the emision of greenhouse gases, him.
We have so many good potential leaders for France that asking for Napoléon is a bad idea. Why should we cycle always between Louis XIV and Napoléon? CdM would never have been my first choice, but at least she brought novelty.
Seriously, before asking again for Napoléon or Louis XIV (or even Charlemagne), take a look at this list: Louis XI, François I, Richelieu, Hugues Capet, Robespierre, Clémenceau (might appear controversial, but I want a 3rd Republic leader too), Henri IV... I would even take Napoléon III before Napoléon I. So, please, stop asking for the same redundant leaders. We have so much history and recognizable names that it would be a waste.
I have nothing against Charlemagne (and he's considered in the list of Kings of France) but speaking of King of France, or even King of the French, is a stretch, because he could as well be a leader for Germany.
If we wanted a French leader with a spy ability, I personally think that Louis XI would have been a much better choice, plus he could have had a big, excentric personality that would fit in the catalog of Civ VI charismatic leaders (having the small goblin with his characteristic little hat and his cunning face and big nose would have be excellent). Basically, I find the lack of recognition of Louis XI while he was probably one of the greatest kings of France, and, most importantly, one of the most competent one, especially knowing that warfare wasn't his forte. Basically, in the history of France, the consolidation and centralization of the country has been made by three kings, chronologicaly: Louis XI (first centralization in a lot of domains and the founder of the French Post Office, something unusual in Europe at this time when all postal matters where in the hands of the Thunder-und-Taxis family), François I (with the Ordinance of Villers Cotterets, making French the official language of the country) and Louis XIV (the absolutism). And yet, Louis XI is often pushed back in the dungeon of History. Why? I would have love to have this king representing my country.
And if they wanted to go for the "not actual de jure leader of France with an espionage focus", I would have chosen Richelieu. Why? BIG RED HAT. And that's a reason good enough in itself to justify having Richelieu in the game.
The Civs 6
King
- Joined
- May 27, 2020
- Messages
- 782
Is this post a joke or are you being serious?
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 862
Globally serious. We don't need Napoleon any more, and we have way more interesting leaders to take from without having to get back again and again to the two most egomaniacal absolutists we had in our History (some reasons are here for jokes, of course, because I like fun, don't you?)
If the only criteria for choosing a leader is "Who is the best?" well, of course, you won't have any variety in any leaders, because once you decided who's the best... why change? But change is good. It helps broadening your illusions and horizons, and bring something new to the game. Not resorting always to Bismarck or Frederick II for Germany is good; not always sticking with Victoria or Elizabeth should be good too; ignoring Napoléon and Louis XIV is good. Trying to not have Alexander at the beginning was good (even if having someone else than Pericles would have been perfect); Kristina for Sweden is perfect because they had other kings and queens than Gustavus Adolphus...
Sometimes, when I see the propositions for leaders for some civs, I have the deep fear that a lot of people actually have no knowledge of History and just want to see the same and same name again because it's all they know... Louis XI or François Ier or even Henri IV did more for France than Napoleon (objectively: Napoléon would have done nothing is all the infrastructures laid by Louis XI weren't there, and all the ideological apparatus behind France centralization came from Louis XI), but just because Napoléon did a lot of battles (that ultimately he lost) and was charismatic, then all of the sudden the only worthly leader France might have is him. Even Imperialism was done better under the 3rd Republic than under Napoléon, and our influence has never been greater than when French was the lingua franca of Europe (something Napoleon has nothing to do with) or when the 3rd Republic had the 2nd largest empire in the world. But no, let's continue to praise the little caporal. He's soooo good.
Last edited:
The Civs 6
King
- Joined
- May 27, 2020
- Messages
- 782
eh i cant disagree with that
Similar threads
