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

[qwert]

You've been taught wrong then. He was crowned Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, not just Emperor of the West. The Roman Catholic Church was attempting to revive the Roman Empire, thus why Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of Rome, essentially. However, his son didn't seem to understand this importance, as he was willing to split up Charlemagne's 'Western Roman Empire' into Frankish and Germanic states...the Germanic state kept most of northern Italy, thus why it became the Holy Roman Empire.

I understand completely that France is as much an offshoot of Charlemagne's empire as the HRE is...however Germany owes more to Charlemagne's unification than France does...without the unification of all the Germanic tribes into some semblence of a country, then its likely one of two things would have occurred, 1) the Dark ages would have lasted much longer due to the proliferation of 'barbarian' tribes in Germany, or 2) Khan wouldn't have been able to be stopped in Poland and would have taken over a much larger chunk of Europe.

As for the number of leaders France and Germany have...that's the number of leaders most civs seem to have...AFAIK only England, Russia and America will have 3 leaders in the next expansion. I would prefer to have France and the HRE and take out Germany, with Frederick and Charlemagne being the rulers of the HRE...since Germany is a very recent country. I'm not saying that Charlemagne doesn't belong to French history, I'm saying that perhaps you should consider the fact that the original HRE was begun with Charlemagne and his son, and included France...it wasn't until his grandsons that France was made separate from the HRE.

Please, don´t take Bismark away.

Only a curiosity: did nobody realize that there is no leader for germany.
Both Federic and Bismark were leaders of Prusia

 

[Öjevind Lång]

It was the Roman Republic then. I've raised this issue many times--the Civilopedia incorrectly identifies Julius as the "First Roman Emperor." That's blatantly false; he was not the first emperor, Augustus was.

Rome existed long before the emperors. The Roman Empire did not. That's why I've always felt we need a leader from earlier Republican Rome, like Sulla, the Gracchi, or even Lucius Junius Brutus.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The term "Imperium Romanorum" does not mean "The Roman Realm ruled by a Monarch (Emperor)" but simply "Roman Rule", that is to say, "the Realm of the Romans" or "the Government/State of the Romans". It was in use long before Augustus. The word "imperator" (meaning "leader, master, ruler") for someone who ruled the Roman Empire alone was first awarded to Augustus and became one of the many titles of the Roman Caesars, and much later, it derived the meaning of "emperor" in various language such as the French ("empereur"), the English ("emperor") and so on. But it did *not* have inevitable royal connotations to the Romans, at least not until rather later than the time of Augustus. When the Romans spoke of the Emperor, be it Augustus or Nero or Septimius Severus or Constantine the Great, they generally called him "Caesar". "Render unto Caesar that which belongs unto Caesar", and so on. In fact, the name Caesar evolved into a title too, and was the origin of the German "Kaiser" and the Russian "Tsar".

The fact that "Imperium Romanorum" could mean both "the Rule of the Romans" and "the Rule over the Romans", "the Roman government", was useful to the Caesars and led to the modern meaning of the word "empire".

It might be added that though Wikipedia is wrong in calling Julius Caesar "the first Roman Emperor", the Roman historian Suetonius (2nd Century A. D.) wrote a book called "Vitae Caesarum" ("The Lives of the Caesars"), which deals with Caesar and the first eleven Emperors. (The English translation published by Penguin is called "The Twelve Caesars".) Augustus claimed to be "the First Senator" ("princeps senatus") of the Roman Empire as a successor to Julius Caesar, who had adopted him and given him his name; being the First Senator also meant that you were the First Citizen. (And the word "princeps" also acquired royal connotations; it is the origin of the modern words "prince/prins/Printz/principe" et cetera.) Since all Emperors until the very end officially claimed to hold their position as inheritors of Julius Caesar, they all took care to assume Caesar as one of their names, if they did not already wear it because they were the son of the previous Caesar or adopted by him. For example, Tiberius, the second Emperor (or Caesar, to use the term employed by his subjects about him and all his successors), was officially called Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus; before he was adopted by his predecessor and stepfather Augustus, his name was Tiberius Claudius Nero.

It would make as much sense to say that the Roman word "imperator" meant "emperor" as to say that the modern word "leader" means "king". In fact, Augustus and his successors presided over an elaborate charade to the effect that they were not royalty but simply ruled Rome as successors to the great Julius Caesar. Of course, that was not true, but to formally declare oneself King (Latin "rex") would have meant courting suicide. Julius Caesar was murdered because he was suspected of planning to proclaim himself king. Inevitably, pretty soon everyone knew that they *did* have a monarchic ruler, but it was wisest to pretend not to know it...

Literally, "res publica" meant "public matter, public thing", that is to say, "the state". The word said nothing about the nature of government. The modern meaning of "republic/Republik/repubblica" and so on is very late and derived from the French "république". That the meaning "polity without a monarch" is very late can be seen, for example, from the fact that Poland, which was ruled by Kings, was officially called "the Polish Republic". The Latin word for "democracy" or "republic", that is to say, a state without a monarch, was simply "populus" ("people"). Populus Romanus = the Roman People (State). But Augustus claimed that he simply led the "Populus Romanus". He wasn't a king, all he had done was to unwillingly, in view of the evil and chaotic times, assume a lot of power as the First Citizen, so the populus was still supreme. He just happened to preside over them. See?

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Please, don´t take Bismark away.

Only a curiosity: did nobody realize that there is no leader for germany.
Both Federic and Bismark were leaders of Prusia

Bismarck became Chancellor of Germany after its creation in 1870.

 

[uppi]

Please, don´t take Bismark away.

Only a curiosity: did nobody realize that there is no leader for germany.
Both Federic and Bismark were leaders of Prusia

At first Bismarck was only the leader of Prussia, but after he had united all German states besides Austria in 1871 he was the leader of Germany.

 

[Grohan]

But Joan was hot, and that was what was important.

Especially in modern age.

IMO Charlemagne should be the leader of France and whole HRE should be removed. Poland, Ethiopia or Polynesia could fill its place as 10th civ. But I guess that is not going to happen...

 

[TheLastOne36]

At first Bismarck was only the leader of Prussia, but after he had united all German states besides Austria in 1871 he was the leader of Germany.

Does it matter? Germany is germany, Prussia is German, HRE is German, Austria is German Switzerland and Belgium are slightly German and Luxembourg is German.

 

[qwert]

Oops, yes you are rigth, i forgot that Bismark became chancelor of germany.
AN Idea: now that the Holy Roman Empire is include they could include also Charles V as one leader for this Civ.

 

[uppi]

Does it matter? Germany is germany, Prussia is German, HRE is German, Austria is German Switzerland and Belgium are slightly German and Luxembourg is German.

Depends on how you define "German"

 

[TheLastOne36]

talking bout the ethnic group.

 

[Stilgar08]

Does it matter? Germany is germany, Prussia is German, HRE is German, Austria is German Switzerland and Belgium are slightly German and Luxembourg is German.

Surely Belgium people love reading this! Same with Luxembourg. Germany is in the middle of Europe and therefore was under many influences and spread a lot of influences and changing empires were common... What's the ranting all about? I read somewhere else you gonna mod Charlemagne out so that's fine, isn't it?

 

[Gaius Octavius]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The term "Imperium Romanorum" does not mean "The Roman Realm ruled by a Monarch (Emperor)" but simply "Roman Rule", that is to say, "the Realm of the Romans" or "the Government/State of the Romans". It was in use long before Augustus. The word "imperator" (meaning "leader, master, ruler") for someone who ruled the Roman Empire alone was first awarded to Augustus and became one of the many titles of the Roman Caesars, and much later, it derived the meaning of "emperor" in various language such as the French ("empereur"), the English ("emperor") and so on. But it did *not* have inevitable royal connotations to the Romans, at least not until rather later than the time of Augustus. When the Romans spoke of the Emperor, be it Augustus or Nero or Septimius Severus or Constantine the Great, they generally called him "Caesar". "Render unto Caesar that which belongs unto Caesar", and so on. In fact, the name Caesar evolved into a title too, and was the origin of the German "Kaiser" and the Russian "Tsar".

The fact that "Imperium Romanorum" could mean both "the Rule of the Romans" and "the Rule over the Romans", "the Roman government", was useful to the Caesars and led to the modern meaning of the word "empire".

It might be added that though Wikipedia is wrong in calling Julius Caesar "the first Roman Emperor", the Roman historian Suetonius (2nd Century A. D.) wrote a book called "Vitae Caesarum" ("The Lives of the Caesars"), which deals with Caesar and the first eleven Emperors. (The English translation published by Penguin is called "The Twelve Caesars".) Augustus claimed to be "the First Senator" ("princeps senatus") of the Roman Empire as a successor to Julius Caesar, who had adopted him and given him his name; being the First Senator also meant that you were the First Citizen. (And the word "princeps" also acquired royal connotations; it is the origin of the modern words "prince/prins/Printz/principe" et cetera.) Since all Emperors until the very end officially claimed to hold their position as inheritors of Julius Caesar, they all took care to assume Caesar as one of their names, if they did not already wear it because they were the son of the previous Caesar or adopted by him. For example, Tiberius, the second Emperor (or Caesar, to use the term employed by his subjects about him and all his successors), was officially called Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus; before he was adopted by his predecessor and stepfather Augustus, his name was Tiberius Claudius Nero.

It would make as much sense to say that the Roman word "imperator" meant "emperor" as to say that the modern word "leader" means "king". In fact, Augustus and his successors presided over an elaborate charade to the effect that they were not royalty but simply ruled Rome as successors to the great Julius Caesar. Of course, that was not true, but to formally declare oneself King (Latin "rex") would have meant courting suicide. Julius Caesar was murdered because he was suspected of planning to proclaim himself king. Inevitably, pretty soon everyone knew that they *did* have a monarchic ruler, but it was wisest to pretend not to know it...

Literally, "res publica" meant "public matter, public thing", that is to say, "the state". The word said nothing about the nature of government. The modern meaning of "republic/Republik/repubblica" and so on is very late and derived from the French "république". That the meaning "polity without a monarch" is very late can be seen, for example, from the fact that Poland, which was ruled by Kings, was officially called "the Polish Republic". The Latin word for "democracy" or "republic", that is to say, a state without a monarch, was simply "populus" ("people"). Populus Romanus = the Roman People (State). But Augustus claimed that he simply led the "Populus Romanus". He wasn't a king, all he had done was to unwillingly, in view of the evil and chaotic times, assume a lot of power as the First Citizen, so the populus was still supreme. He just happened to preside over them. See?

That you for that very long post. As a student of ancient Mediterranean history, with an emphasis in Roman history, I find that I often need to be corrected by more informed people on the internet.



Sorry, I don't mean to be mean there. I agree with everything you said.

At any rate, my point was that the name Roman Empire, as it is used today, is often a construct, much in the same way the phrase Byzantine Empire is. (There is a very long debate between Titus001 and myself on this issue.) We divide Rome into two eras, not counting the Monarchy: the Republic and Empire. The Romans themselves did not see it in such stark terms, particularly in Augustus' day. (There was a recognition that things had changed, though, but that had been going on for 30 years.) Having Julius as the leader of the Roman Empire therefore seems a bit anachronistic to modern eyes. Maybe we should change the name to SPQR.

You are exactly right in what you said about Augustus, et al, but that only strengthens my point. Of course a new Roman state did not suddenly come into existence with Augustus; he styled himself as a protector and preserver of the old ways, even as he fundamentally changed the way the state would be run. The Senate still existed (and continued to exist up until the fall of Rome) but it would slowly lose its power.

My main beef with the Julius issue is that they've labeled him as the "First Roman Emperor" (in the Civilopedia, not Wikipedia.) This is patently false. Ask anyone with a knowledge of Roman history that extends beyond the movie Gladiator, and they will correctly identify Augustus as the first emperor. The were plenty of others who held great power, e.g. Sulla, and later on members of the Triumvirate, but none held the wide swath of power--without actually holding all the offices--that Augustus did.

Augustus was a pretty shrewd politician. He knew he'd have to curry favor with the Senate if he wanted to have any hope of holding all that power without getting bumped off. He was smart enough to learn the lesson Julius never learned. He may not have said in public outright, "I am in control; the Senate is subservient," but that was largely the reality of the situation.

I just think it would be interesting to see an earlier leader from the Republic, like Sulla or even Scipio. That was my main thrust--the Republic gets ignored, the Empire gets all the glory. ...That sounds familiar...

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I just think it would be interesting to see an earlier leader from the Republic, like Sulla or even Scipio. That was my main thrust--the Republic gets ignored, the Empire gets all the glory. ...That sounds familiar...

I did perhaps become too prolix, but my basic argument was that the Roman Empire existed centuries before there were any Emperors, and that it can be fatal to impose modern political perceptions on ancient civilizations.

As you have stated yourself, Julius Caesar was not an emperor, so he might very well represent the Roman Empire during the republic. It is hard to think of any other Roman leader who achieved as much as he before Augustus.

 

[sydhe]

I'm not sure I'd want a Roman leader from before 100 BC since the individual consuls generally didn't serve that long (and there were two of them). Although it would be cool to have Cincinnatus.

 

[methane]

At any rate, my point was that the name Roman Empire, as it is used today, is often a construct, much in the same way the phrase Byzantine Empire is. (There is a very long debate between Titus001 and myself on this issue.) We divide Rome into two eras, not counting the Monarchy: the Republic and Empire. The Romans themselves did not see it in such stark terms, particularly in Augustus' day. (There was a recognition that things had changed, though, but that had been going on for 30 years.) Having Julius as the leader of the Roman Empire therefore seems a bit anachronistic to modern eyes. Maybe we should change the name to SPQR.

I don't believe the designers meant the word empire in the specific way historians use it to divide Roman history. I think they use it as a more general description. Britain before WW II was an empire even though it was a constitutional monarchy at home. After the Spanish American War people talk about an American Empire even though the US was a republic at home. Rome was very much an empire even before Caesar took power, even though the home city was ruled as a republic.

Though I grant you Caesar shouldn't be called 'emperor'.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

In general, I agree with Öjevind Lång. "Imperator" does not mean emperor but simply "Commander". Augustus was in no way the first Imperator, since the title had referred to any General for centuries. Both the names Augustus and Caesar became titles often translated as emperor. The decision that it was Augustus and not Julius who was the first Emperor is usually held as correct, but it is quite arbitrary. Also, after his adoption Octavian's legal name became Gaius Julius Caesar, so if Augustus was the first emperor, then the first emperor was Julius Caesar.

Legionaries would have been better than Praetorians, since they were but a small elite force created by the Senate to be guards of important commanders on their trips back and forth between Rome and the Battlefront. These, of course, are most famous for their later role of guarding the emperors. The most important Praetorians were actually usually Germanic mercenaries, since Roman soldiers were suspected to have ties to the current emperor's political rivals, increasing the chance that the emperors guards would become his assassins (which they very often were).

Cincinnatus would be nice (we could replace Augustus with him, since, as I explained, both the current leaders had the same name). Consul usually didn't serve long because they were legally restricted to a 1 year term, and could not run again until the end of their successors term. (Of course, Julius Caesar and many emperors somehow overcame that restriction and were named Consul for life). Dictators were only legally permitted to remain in office for 6 months, but that didn't stop many (i.e., just about all of them except Cincinnatus) from declaring themselves dictators for life.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I don't believe the designers meant the word empire in the specific way historians use it to divide Roman history. I think they use it as a more general description. Britain before WW II was an empire even though it was a constitutional monarchy at home. After the Spanish American War people talk about an American Empire even though the US was a republic at home. Rome was very much an empire even before Caesar took power, even though the home city was ruled as a republic.

Though I grant you Caesar shouldn't be called 'emperor'.

Historians do not use the term "the Empire" to specifically denote Rome after it became ruled by emperors. When speaking of the political setup, they use the term "the Principate" for that period . To modern people, it can of course be a bit confusing that the Roman Empire was called the Roman Empire long before it was ruled by Emperors (of course it retained the name afterwards), but that is due to later linguistic and semantic developments. As already stated, the usual term for Emperor in Roman times was "Caesar". Augustus assumed a lot of titles and honorific appellations to signify his power. He was Imperator (Commander, Leader), Caesar, Consul for life (and he saw to it that the other Consul always was a nonentity), pontifex maximus (high priest), pater patriae ("the father of the fatherland"), princeps senatus (First Senator = First Citizen), Tribune (leader of the by then powerless Popular Assembly) and Augustus ("the August One").

 

[mrt144]

NERD FALLACY! GAMES ARE INSPIRED BY HISTORICAL FACT, THEY ARE NOT HISTORICAL FACT!

so on and so forth forever and ever.

 

[Rince]

I usually also prefer gameplay over historical accuracy especially if making it accurate would complicate matters. But in the case of HRE and Charlemagne I really don't see why this choice was made over all the other, much more important and accurate choices, like the inclusion of the austrian-hungarian empire.

Is it really so difficult to at least make sensible leader choices? I think not.

Rince

 

[kazapp]

To me, this complaint seems just to be desperate nationalism from a frenchman.

But you can chill, the rest of us don't believe Charlemagne was an evil german.

Including the Holy Roman Empire makes much sense to me, and placing Charlemagne at the head seems only reasonable as he's the nearest they ever got to a memorable leader...

Regarding the suggestion to include a separate Frankish civ: Let me just politely note down that only a Frenchman could propose such a thing with a straight face... or perhaps you would like several dozen german civs to be included too, hint hint nudge nudge?

 

[Jan H]

Does it matter? Germany is germany, Prussia is German, HRE is German, Austria is German Switzerland and Belgium are slightly German and Luxembourg is German.

Surely Belgium people love reading this!

hehe, indeed

For those of you who may not know it, German is the third official language of Belgium, besides Dutch (=Flemish) and French. This is because there are about 50.000 German speaking people living in the area near the German border. This area is known as "Ost-Belgien" (East-Belgium), and it was a part of Germany until 1919. It was given to Belgium as compensation for the World War I, as part of the Treaty of Versailles.