Why so many people have problem with Italian ruling France?

[Krajzen]

So there is a huge commotion, especially on YT, regarding Catherine di Medici being Italian ruler of France.

In fact this video is by far the most controversial of 7 FLcivs videos so far (I haven't checked but am pretty sure it has slightly more dislikes - because of CdM - than all other videos combined).

Some of top comments:
>Isn't she Italian? - 29 likes
>alright, I was thinking Louis XIV or something, but Italian girl that's fine. - 227 likes
>(...) She wasn't even French but Italian. - 128
>Italian girl for France? Seems legit. - 16
>First no France in Battlefield One, now ruler of france replaced by Italian duchess! France is being removed from history... - 54
>Well, it's official. I hate feminism. It's ruined the Civ franchise. - 70

Almost all top YT comments under this video are like this. Can anybody explain this phenomenon to me?


I mean, in the beautiful era before the rise of nationalism, a lot of European rulers and monarchs (not to even mention the rest of the world) was from completely different nationalities than nations they ruled.

*Catherine the Great of Russia was 100% ethnically German (Born in Prussia as Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg )
*Napoleon himself was in fact called Napoleone di Buonaparte, born from family of Tuscans in Corsica barely at time when France acquired the island, so he can be safely named at least partial Italian (he also barely knew French in the beginning and had strong foreign accent)
*Alexander the Great of Greece was ethnically Macedonian (and no, this is not synonymous with Greek, while ancient Greeks considered Macedonians to be "close", they were still outsiders; Macedonia under Alexander's father conquered Greece and united it by force)
*Cleopatra of Egypt was Greek
*Saladin "of Arabia" was of Kurdish origin and ruled mainly from Egypt
*Mughal dynasty of India was "Muslim Persianate dynasty of Chagatai Turco-Mongol origin"
*A ton of Roman emperors was from outside of the Appenin Peninsula (at least few of them was of Middle Eastern region)
*Poland, my own country, had kings who were ethnically totally Hungarian/Bohemian/Lithuanian/Swedish and some of them were considered brilliant rulers; and personally I'd have no problem with Hungarian Stephen Bathory being ruler of PL in civ6


Ethnicity of all those characters doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact they entirely or partially adopted the culture of the country they ruled, and were trying to rule it well (mostly).
So, what's the problem?

 

[zwei833]

I don't think there is any problem.

 

[darko82]

Did she rule France? Yes? Was Jadwiga Polish? Wasn't Jagieło Grand Duke of Lithuania. Those arguments are funny.

Personality is what makes them be in the game. Is this difficult to get?

She "knows everything about everyone in the game", which sounds fun to play with.

 

[migalhone]

The argument "she wasn't French" is a bit silly and frankly nonensical. My guess is people react like that because they never heard of her, don't have a clue on who she is and don't recognize her as relevant.

 

[Gordon Brittas]

There should not be a problem at all. England has had German monarchy since George I.

 

[mrwho]

Personally I couldn't care less about the leaders as long as they make some degree of sense. What I care about is gameplay, and France under Catherine sounds like an interesting civ. My one gripe is that I think too many civs have wonder bonuses at the moment.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Moved to World History forum as it has nothing to do with Civ6.

 

[Ezumiyr]

I don't get it either. She didn't rule in France as an Italian, and she is known as a queen of France. I bet everyone would agree that Daenerys could be the ruler of the Dothraki if they were added to a civ game.
In fact, I'm more offended when I see Napoleon proposed as a ruler for France, because he's reaaaally not a positive figure. It's not like Hitler for Germany because it's older history and he wasn't genocidal (which could be debatable, since he re-established slavery), but he's still a tyrant who killed a lot of people. To say the least, he's a controversial figure.
I wished for Richelieu, thought it would be Louis XIV, but Catherine de Médicis is a nice and original idea.
Of course she's not a bright figure either, because of St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, but at least she did other things than that, and her responsability is not certain.

Just a note about Cleopatra :
When she came to power, the Ptolemies have been in Egypt for 300 years. Even if it's true that there was still a distinction between Helens and Egyptians at her time, just remember than Teddy Rossevelt ruled on a one century old country. Egyptian greeks like Cleopatra were different from other greeks (you can find a lot of greek words in lagid egyptian and a lot of egyptian words in egyptian greek, for instance).
No matter how one try to twist the facts, Cleopatra's situation is not really comparable to the nobles of medieval/Renaissance nobles (or even Napoleon, which is also from a noble family) who moved a lot through Europe. Compared to Catherine de Médicis or to Teddy Roosevelt, Cleopatra is an Égyptienne de souche (which means "native Egyptian" in french).

 

[Delvi]

The problem is that people don't know history: Italy wasn't even existing at that time. If people are so keen about nations, they should play with Fifa 2016 instead.

 

[Acken]

I dont mind it that much its just icing on the cake.

Im more annoyed because her accomplishments are really underwhelming compared to more colorful figures.

 

[LDiCesare]

The OP comparison with Napoleon is wrong. He was French, and speaking French at the time (and until 1914 at the very least), had nothing to do with being French.

Catherine is disliked because she is mostly unknown, mostly irrelevant despite Ed Beach's fondness for her. There were tons of choices that made more sense. Picking a "ruler" that noone knows in its own country just feels silly, particularly when she wasn't an actual ruler but at best a regent.

 

[Tahuti]

The OP comparison with Napoleon is wrong. He was French, and speaking French at the time (and until 1914 at the very least), had nothing to do with being French.

Napoleon was Corsican and regional differences mattered a lot more at the time than nowadays. Culturally speaking, it was much closer to the Italian states, even though politically it was already part of France. Given the French revolution's intolerance to regional identities, Napoleon's rise thanks to it can be considered rather extraordinary.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

There should not be a problem at all. England has had German monarchy since George I.

And let's not even start with the Habsburgs...

 

[Kyriakos]

Imo it is a weird choice. Would make more sense to go with the Capetian kingdom, although 'France' became a main power rather after the 100 years war, so they should choose some at least relatively known monarch from then.
Not seeing how this ties to Alexander. For starters, Alexander was a tad more important than Catherine of the Medici
Re Catherine of Russia, she was a very important ruler, and expanded Russia, let alone she is easily one of the most famous russian leaders, so again it is not a parallel to this latest choice.

I liked Theodora as leader of the Byz Empire, cause she was (irl too) hot. But people like Herakleios, Basil II, any of the Komnenoi (with John being a favourite) or (if we go with post 1204) Michael VIII Palaiologos would have made far more sense.

 

[Dachs]

any of the Komnenoi (with John being a favourite)

if you put John the Beautiful's face in a video game people would probably assume it was a graphical glitch

 

[Kyriakos]

You are talking of the clear inspiration for Tyrion. -iirc- didn't he even have an ex cut-throat (and a turk) as his loyal friend/hypaspist as well?

Moreover, remember Beroe 1122. Supposedly he was the one leading the varangian guard in their charge.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Can we please not derail this thread?
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[innonimatu]

Beautiful? What is beautiful about political marriages and etc.? This was a time when there was a great disparity between the poor and the rich of society. The poor did not live quality lives, usually died young, and if they did not have a strong sense of nationalism, it was probably because they couldn't care less where the monarch that lorded over them came from.

I'll add to this that we should question the common idea that the pre-modern era (before the 17th century) had no nationalism. Politics were more personalized but there were strong community identities that led to many rebellions in medieval Europe. Republics were established in Italy, a major cause (or perhaps consequence? but that is besides this point) of the HRE's troubles there, and those had implicit to them a kind of "civil nationalism".

Further south there were the Sicilian Verpers, elsewhere in Europe there were similar "independentist", if not nationalist, movements: the Battle of the Golden Spurs in Flanders, the Crisis of 1883-85 in Portugal, etc.
People were picky about who (and even how) ruled them, if they felt they had the power to take sides and choose.

 

[Tahuti]

I'll add to this that we should question the common idea that the pre-modern era (before the 17th century) had no nationalism. Politics were more personalized but there were strong community identities that led to many rebellions in medieval Europe. Republics were established in Italy, a major cause (or perhaps consequence? but that is besides this point) of the HRE's troubles there, and those had implicit to them a kind of "civil nationalism".

"Parochialism" is a better word; Nation-States require reasonably modern communications and infrastructure. There were of course prototypical nationalisms dating from the Middle Ages though compared to modern nation-states, they were generally small (Holland, Venice) or very strongly tied to the monarch: It was practically impossible to imagine oneself a Frenchman and not a subject of the French sovereign. Overall, matters were more decentralised in before the 18th century and spread over various institutions apart from the state, such as the church.

"France" as a concept dates back to before the year 1000, though before the rule of Louis XIV, it was more of a decentralised clothpiece than the modern nation-state it is today.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'll add to this that we should question the common idea that the pre-modern era (before the 17th century) had no nationalism. Politics were more personalized but there were strong community identities that led to many rebellions in medieval Europe. Republics were established in Italy, a major cause (or perhaps consequence? but that is besides this point) of the HRE's troubles there, and those had implicit to them a kind of "civil nationalism".

Further south there were the Sicilian Verpers, elsewhere in Europe there were similar "independentist", if not nationalist, movements: the Battle of the Golden Spurs in Flanders, the Crisis of 1883-85 in Portugal, etc.
People were picky about who (and even how) ruled them, if they felt they had the power to take sides and choose.

That seems like it risks reading history backwards. It treats the development of group-identities as a teleology culminating in the modern-nation state, rather than what seems to me the far more natural conclusion that human beings have always had a tendency towards strong group-identities, and that nationalism is the modern expression of that tendency.