Designing civ: Germany

. . . German nationalists, and Nazis in particular, had sketchy ideas, many of which would have horrified the people they roped into being their icons (e.g., Bismarck would have loathed Hitler). That the Nazis liked someone is not adequate reason to paint them as a villain. (A few exceptions do deserve it, like Wagner.)

Just started reading a new history of the German unification movement in the 19th century, Blood and Iron, and the German author points out that the original "German Nationalists" were the Liberals. Bismarck and the conservatives in general thought they were out to do away with the traditional 'Divine Right' monarchies in the German states (which they were - they started out taking their inspiration from the French Revolution, which didn't win them many friends among any conservative group in Europe), and detested them.

Bismarck's view of German Nationalism meant A Prussian Monarchy leading Everybody Else: no liberals, constitutionalists, democrats, socialists, or even other German states had any place in governing His Germany. Given Bismarck's embracing of realpolitik (a term invented by one of the German Liberal politicians, by the way) not only would be have despised Hitler, but Hitler might not have realized the fact until it was Too Late, the usual fate of Bismarck's German political opponents . . .
 
Given Bismarck's embracing of realpolitik (a term invented by one of the German Liberal politicians, by the way) not only would be have despised Hitler, but Hitler might not have realized the fact until it was Too Late, the usual fate of Bismarck's German political opponents . . .
That would have been delightful to read about at a suitable distance.
 
germany should have a bonus to converting back free cities that were once a part of it
The emperor certainly would have appreciated such a bonus in the sixteenth/seventeenth centuries. :shifty:
 
The emperor certainly would have appreciated such a bonus in the sixteenth/seventeenth centuries. :shifty:

Which points to the fact that the "Holy Roman Empire" should NOT be used as a substitute for "Germany" in the game. The Holy Roman Emperor might have been speaking German (some of the time), but despite the resounding title, he was little more than a chairman of a particularly fractious board, not all of whom even bothered to show up for announced board meetings.
Most specifically, he could not rely on most of the "German" states to even send troops when called, nor did the 'Empire" even have complementary trade agreements, tolls, roads, waterways, or weights and measures (famously, an 'ell' of cloth didn't even mean the same amount from one end of the Germany to the other until the Zollverein of the late 19th century!)

That makes the HRE act, if it is to be portrayed at all, very different from any 'normal' Civ in the game. In fact, I'd argue that it should be a Special Civ or even a 'Semi' Government/Civ - somewhere between an in-game Civilization and an early World Congress covering only a small fraction of the map, but potentially including both other Civs (Germany, Austria, parts of Bohemia, Poland, Italy, France, etc) and a bunch of City States and able to draw on their military and other resources, but only with difficulty.
 
Which points to the fact that the "Holy Roman Empire" should NOT be used as a substitute for "Germany" in the game. The Holy Roman Emperor might have been speaking German (some of the time), but despite the resounding title, he was little more than a chairman of a particularly fractious board, not all of whom even bothered to show up for announced board meetings.
Most specifically, he could not rely on most of the "German" states to even send troops when called, nor did the 'Empire" even have complementary trade agreements, tolls, roads, waterways, or weights and measures (famously, an 'ell' of cloth didn't even mean the same amount from one end of the Germany to the other until the Zollverein of the late 19th century!)

That makes the HRE act, if it is to be portrayed at all, very different from any 'normal' Civ in the game. In fact, I'd argue that it should be a Special Civ or even a 'Semi' Government/Civ - somewhere between an in-game Civilization and an early World Congress covering only a small fraction of the map, but potentially including both other Civs (Germany, Austria, parts of Bohemia, Poland, Italy, France, etc) and a bunch of City States and able to draw on their military and other resources, but only with difficulty.
On the one hand, I won't deny being fond of having Holy Roman Emperors as German leaders simply because I'm bored of Bismarck (as much as I really do like him as a historical figure) and would very much rather not see either Wilhelm (though leaders of individual principalities would be acceptable to me). On the other, I love your idea of treating the HRE as a sort of umbrella civ with independent constituents, not least of all because I have certainly championed a number of its member states as full civs, including Bohemia and Austria (albeit probably not both in one game).
 
On the one hand, I won't deny being fond of having Holy Roman Emperors as German leaders simply because I'm bored of Bismarck (as much as I really do like him as a historical figure) and would very much rather not see either Wilhelm (though leaders of individual principalities would be acceptable to me). On the other, I love your idea of treating the HRE as a sort of umbrella civ with independent constituents, not least of all because I have certainly championed a number of its member states as full civs, including Bohemia and Austria (albeit probably not both in one game).

IF, and that's a really big 'If', the game ever starts treating City State Civs like classical Greece, Renaissance Italy and all the time Switzerland as the different Civs they are, then I think the HRE is another of the same type, only big enough to include complete Civs as well as City States.
For that matter, a workable model of that sort of Civ would also include the modern British Post-Empire: the member states like Canada, New Zealand, Australia were not as fully subservient to British/English interests as W. Churchill's history of the Second World War would have you believe: the Brits had to negotiate to get troops, and so badly managed the negotiations that Australia pulled virtually all of its troops out of the European/North African theatres after 1942 because, among other things, they didn't trust the British commanders not to lose them (a legitimate concern, since the inept British generalship had already managed to get two Australian divisions captured or overrun by the Afrika Korps)
 
Top Bottom