Charlemagne and HRE - A historical inconsistency in Civ4

[ChaosSlayer]

This has been bugging me for a while so here it is...

While I understand that what is represented in Civ4 not suppose to be 100% accurate, and game suppose to be "what if" anyway, but there is one rather BIG inconsistency in Civilopedia.

Civilopedia lists Charlemagne as emperor of Holy Roman Empire, which is 100% incorrect.

Charlemagne was a ruler of Franks Empire (covering mostly entire territory of modern France, Germany, Spain, Austria and northern Italy), also know as Fraconia, which existed from 481 to 814 - essentially up to a point of his death. In fact he was the last ruler of the empire which was then divided into 3 independent kingdoms between his sons.

Holy Roman Empire on other hand (with Germany being the base kingdom at its heart) existed from 962 to1806. HRE rulers like to pretend that they were in a way successors to Francia and original Roman Empire, but in fact they hold only a tiny fraction of territories of those that use to belong to the empires in question.

So to summarize, HRE only came to be a century AFTER Charlemagne, occupying barely a third , if not less, of Charlemagne empire, so listing Charlemagne as HRE founder is technically incorrect, and even an insult to him, since he was a founder and ruler of a much greater state

Francs Empire, as you can obviously see, is excluded from the game on other hand

 

[CivNoobie]

burger king corp. took over, that's wuht happened

 

[vandermerwe]

There's more than one. Churchill wasn't prime minister of England (should be UK), Stalin wasn't the leader of Russia (should be USSR), Pericles wasn't the leader of Greece (should be Athens), Gandhi wasn't the leader of India (or anywhere), and Brennus, Ragnar and Gilgamesh may not have existed at all...

Doesn't matter much IMO. None of them lived for 6,500 years without changing their clothes either.

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

This has been brought up a few times before. Still a valid point though.

Also, the Celts were never a civilization in the manner of all the others- and the Native Americans definitely weren't, and if they were, 99% of the tribes would take issue with having Sitting Bull as their leader.

 

[Packers5280]

ChaosSlayer, you are wrong on several accounts:

Actually, Charlemagne was the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. He just wasn't crowned emperor until December 25, 800 CE by the Pope during Christmas morning mass.
And his kingdom was inherited by his son, Louis the Pious, still the emperor of the HRE. THEN the kingdom was divided among Louis the Pious three sons Charles the Bald (France), Lothar (middle -including Rome), and Louis the German (Germany) according to the Frankish custom of dividing the inheritance among the sons. Then the HRE ceased to exist until Otto the Great united the East kingdom (Germany) and the Middle kingdom to reform the HRE.

 

[damerell]

Actually, Charlemagne was the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. He just wasn't crowned emperor until December 25, 800 CE by the Pope during Christmas morning mass.

Er, he was crowned Roman Emperor; the empire doesn't start getting called "holy" until some time in the 12th century. Charlemagne's empire was a precursor to the HRE, true... but so was the Roman Empire, and that doesn't make the Roman Empire the HRE.

 

[calibur]

Saying Charlemagne was Holy roman emperor is like saying Constantine was Byzantine emperor.

 

[ChaosSlayer]

exactly.
Its same as saying that Charlemagne was also king of France, Spain, and a handful of other countries.

Stalin for Russia/USSR actually makes sense since Russia was always a primary base country in Russian Empire (which also included Caucasus, Poland, Ukraine, some other territories), which were almost completely inherited over by USSR (minus Poland), in which again Russia was a primary base territory.

Churchill again makes sense for England/UK since those almost always used interchangeably, except when you talk about pre-medieval period.

But in case of HRE - it nearly the same as Germany. Since Germany was the primary base state in both. So those two are actually redundant.

But Listing Charlemagne as HRE ruler, instead of ruler of Fraconia, is like listing Alexander the Great as ruler of India, since Macedonian Empire DID include India at some point.
Or listing any of Roman emperors as rulers of Greece/Spain/France/Germany/England instead of Italy etc.

At same time - Civ have Carthage, but doesn't lists such powerhouse as Almohad that ruled massive territories in North Africa from Spain to Egypt during the middle ages.

 

[rfcfanatic]

Napoleon and De Gaulle leading France under the flag of fleur-de-lis is also kind of hilarious.

 

[SquirrelCensus]

I would have liked to see Barbarossa be the HRE leader. The PRO/IMP traits would probably have to go. He would probably be two of CHA, SPI, AGG, & ORG.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Napoleon and De Gaulle leading France under the flag of fleur-de-lis is also kind of hilarious.

A lot of the flags are at least worthy of question .

 

[damerell]

Churchill again makes sense for England/UK since those almost always used interchangeably, except when you talk about pre-medieval period.

Of course this is not even remotely the case, for all that the people you interact with are ignorant of the distinction.

 

[gja102]

I think the game is right to list Charlemagne as leader of HRE. His empire didn't just include territory which was subsequently recognised as the HRE, as some are suggesting; his intervention in Italy and crowning by the Pope as Holy Roman Emperor was the entire legal basis of the Medieval HRE.

He owned all of France and Germany, was crowned emperor, when the empire split into France and Germany the German half inherited the claim to papal recognition. Kaiser = Ceasar.

I understand the counter-argument, sure, but when you consider all the gross historical inaccuracies in civ, this doesn't really compare.

 

[shakabrade]

Churchill again makes sense for England/UK since those almost always used interchangeably, except when you talk about pre-medieval period.

Probably didn't hear that Scotland will probably vote themselves out of the UK. Also, great deal of Northern Ireland folks consider they are occupied. I strongly advise against going to Scotland and refer to local people as Englishmen.

Regarding Charlemagne and HRE, good call.
Franks Empire is incredibly underrepresented in Civ. While there are Native Americans who don't have any single characteristics of civilization. And Charlie has all the wrong wimpy traits for someone as great. Although his Meroving predecessors did quite solid base for his success.

 

[damerell]

I think the game is right to list Charlemagne as leader of HRE. His empire didn't just include territory which was subsequently recognised as the HRE, as some are suggesting; his intervention in Italy and crowning by the Pope as Holy Roman Emperor was the entire legal basis of the Medieval HRE.

Except he was never crowned as _Holy_ Roman Emperor. The use of Holy really, honestly, does date from the 12th century.

... not that I think the Civ use of him is bad.

 

[jordiflor]

Emperor Charles V (XVI century, aka king Charles I of Spain) is the fifth Charles because there was a first Charles who happened to be Charlemagne.
So, regardless of whether Charlemagne was crowned as Holy or Unholy, his empire has always been identified with what later would be better known as HRE.
Charlemagne's point was to revive Western Roman empire, and he was crowned as Imperator Romanorum ("Emperor of the Romans").
All you will agree that it would have been weird to put Charlemagne as leader of Roman civ along with Augustus and Julius.

 

[ChaosSlayer]

well the fact is that he was crown "Roman Emperor" by Pope which was nothing more than a honorary title since Charlemagne was already a figure of power to be feared and respected
And HRE only came to existence 100 years later, and "claimed" Charlemagne as their emperor, again out of respect and for their own gain and prestige.

Charlemagne DE FACTO was emperor of much bigger Frankish Empire which he himself created, and I feel its strange to rob him of his achievement, and hand him some other state instead.

 

[Packers5280]

Since the pope crowned Charlemagne emperor, the papacy would argue that the emperor's power came from God and not from the emperor himself. That sparked a power struggle between the papacy and the emperor for several centuries. The pope would try to order the emperor to do his bidding, while the emperor would try to order the pope around. A good example is Henry IV and Gregory VII and their issue of investiture. It did not help that the church and the HRE were extremely intertwined, with the emperor nominating church officials to help keep his nobles under control. So whether or not Charlemagne's title, as well as other emperors, was honorific has been a much debated topic in history.

Regarding Charlemagne's traits, I also disagree with his given traits. I think one of his traits should be creative, since he made his capital a knowledge center. He also helped restore many Roman classical writing with creating a new writing system that was slow and required spaces between words. While those additions were simple they "slowed" down the writing from the monk's fast scribble that was basically unreadable into something much more legible.

 

[gja102]

well the fact is that he was crown "Roman Emperor" by Pope which was nothing more than a honorary title since Charlemagne was already a figure of power to be feared and respected
And HRE only came to existence 100 years later, and "claimed" Charlemagne as their emperor, again out of respect and for their own gain and prestige.

Charlemagne DE FACTO was emperor of much bigger Frankish Empire which he himself created, and I feel its strange to rob him of his achievement, and hand him some other state instead.

Are you saying that the Frankish empire should be a separate civ? Alongside Germany and France and the HRE? Bringing the total number of civs, that can arguably count Charlemagne as one of their leaders, up to four?

 

[ChaosSlayer]

Are you saying that the Frankish empire should be a separate civ? Alongside Germany and France and the HRE? Bringing the total number of civs, that can arguably count Charlemagne as one of their leaders, up to four?

Its a general problem with Empires that control more than 1 nation:
Roman Empire - at some point included almost all of Europe and chunks of Africa/Asia.
Macedonian Empire went all way to India - but you still have Greece as base state.


What I did, I simply renamed HRE to Frankish Empire.
HRE is 99% redundant with just Germany so I had no use for that.