Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Xineoph, Jan 5, 2006.
Keep getting A's; college has girls, beer, and no curfew (and mom and dad pay the bills!)
wow...... okay...... I'm already getting A's... And I hate beer.... but girls are okay...
I hate beer too! - Still havn't aquired the taste for it, maybe never will - I like some wines and I like port, but not a lot of drinks take my fansy.
It'd good you're getting A's! Keep it up, it will improve your chances of getting a good job later on in life.
Beer's alright, but cider's better. Always wanted to try mead, but no-one sells it and I've been told it tastes like a diabetics piss...
You know what really tastes like bitter piss?
Except a lot of this history lesson isn't even correct...
Yet, almost all of these territories had their own kings, their own agendas, and would quite-often ignore the commands of the Holy Roman Emperor... in a nutshell, the HRE was not a nation-state, but a very (VERY) loose collection of allied kings and states under one figure-head (the Holy Roman Emperor), who didn't exercise as much power as one might think he did/should.
Actually, this is entirely incorrect... Napoleon disolved the HRE in 1806, not 1870. The Holy Roman Emperor Francis II then created the Austrian Empire out of his lands in Austria... the German states were far more influenced by Prussia then Austria and the former HRE... and it was Prussia that defeated Austria in 1866 that led to the uniting of Germany under nominally Prussian control in 1871.
this is my first message in this forum... I'd really like to say that you make this place more than a useless game forum... it's a kind of history forum consisted of individual informations and comments from all over the world.
the only point that I am really struggling in understanding the reason of excluding Ottomans/ Turks... any of us that read even a couple pages history can say how much they impacted history... I see many civs in the game that had not even a half impact of ottomans...
You should have a look at the two expantion packs! "Warlords" has the Ottomans and "Beyond the Sword" gives them an extra Leader!
Before I knew about the expantion packs - which wasn't too long ago when I heard myself - I thought that they should of added the Ottomans too!
With the expantion "Warlords" they added 6 new Civilizations - Celts inclueded!!! And with "Beyond the Sword" they added 10 more! - So 16 new ones all up - plus they add many new Leaders to the game.
what's lingonberry juice?
also, I suggest getting BTS first, not warlords. get warlords just for the scenarios because that's the only thing that BTS doesn't have that warlords has....
I just got "Warlords" yesterday! I got it for $4!!! It had been there for a long time and the outer casing was damaged a bit, so I got it really cheep! It was originaly $40, then it went down to $14, and then to $4! It's got some really good senarios, but it also adds great generals, unique buildings, a few new wonders, leaders and Civilizations - I've been playing as the celts and they are the best team I've played so far, suits me perfectly!
I am looking into getting "Beyond the Sword", but "Warlords" will keep me busy 'till then!
Congrats!!!!!! I hope you enjoy it!!!!!
you could've saved 4 $ if you just got BTS. All Warlords stuff(except for scenerios) come with BTS.
So you really just got an expansion pack for it's scenerios.
yeah, 4$ for scenarios??!?!?! that's a good deal!
Well I've actualy been playing the Rise of Rome senario, and it is really cool! - I'm the Celts and I'm at war with the Romans...winning too! - Plus the Chinese unification senario seems really cool! You can play as the Qin, famous for their deadly archers!
So anway, I still believe it's $4 well spent!
If you read my posting careful then you would notice that this shift of power in favor of the member states is exactly what I had described. You are also incorrect if you call the Holy Roman Empire a collection of Kings and States. Like I said the Holy Roman Empire was not a state, but an umbrella held together by a common belief (Christianity) and common ideas (defense against the Magyars, Vikings, Mongols, Ottomans etc.)
It was never a collection or a state or a Nation for that matter. (btw :NATION ? Dude, you are approximately 800 years wrong if you compare the HRE with a NATION. The french idea of a Nation was born only in the 18th century !The HRE was founded in the 10th century!)
But back to topic : The Emperor was never meant to have direct control over his subjects, but an Emperor is an earthly spiritual and physical leader over his subjects.
You actually confuse the Medieval Idea of Leadership with the Modern American Idea of leadership.
(this confusion is caused by your cultural heritage. As you are an American you need to be veeery careful in interpreting European Culture and European History. American Culture has originated as an opposition to European values and beliefs. The American Founders wanted to do everything different, for good and for bad. Therefore please never use an American Ruler for interpreting European History or Culture.)
Leadership in traditional sense is not the executive power of an American President or the Pepsi-CEO or the former Fuehrer, but Leadership in traditional original sense is the moral and ethical leadership that we find today in the instituition of the German President, the Spanish King or the Catholic Pope.
These latters ones have no institutional power, but they are nevertheless very much able to rally their subjects around their banner if they have a strong cause.
E.g. the Spanish King was very important in the transition of Spain into an parlamentiary democracy during the 1980s after the abandonement of the Military Dictatorship introduced by Franco (after Franco's death in 1975)
The last Pope (who was a Pole) was very important for in the success of the anti-communist movement in Poland during the 80s as well and there are several more examples.
The same holds true for the Holy Roman Emperor. There were several occasion when only the Emperor was able to unite all these independent Kings and Lords into one crushing force. Thanks to this unity the devastating invasions of the Magyars (Modern Hungarians) were stopped by a bunch of rag-tag Knights. Later the unstoppable technically far advanced Armies of the Ottomans were stopped even twice from ever reaching beyond the Balkans into Central Europe and there are numerious other examples.
But more happened. Despite the fact that the Holy Roman Empire was born out of a personal superiority complex of a mighty Saxon King, nevertheless the Saxon Kings (and later the Schwabian Kings, Austrian Kings and whoever other dynasty was holding the title) started to become more than just Saxons Kings or Schwabian Kings or Austrian Kings etc.
A sense of a common identity was spreading in a land that was ravaged by brutal tribalism only years before the HRE was founded. With the success on the battlefield of the Emperor the Saxons , Bavarians, Friesians and all other tribes more and more noticed the similiarities they shared with each other rather than the differences. (and there are at least 20 former tribes today united in the Modern German Federal Republic not to mention the other states that were founded on the former HRE territory)
This is the miracle and the achievement. Please just study the deep-rooted tribal conflicts of the Balkans, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even in a cradle of Civilization like Irak (Babylon) and you might get a glimpse of HOW important the HRE Emperor was in the history of the last millenium.
I am convinced that you should reevaluate this statements of yours, apart from this your user name 'Wolfshanze' is spelled wrong. The real German term is 'Wolfschanze'
(and frankly speaking it is a very ignorant choice for a user name, but this is not my business)
The french idea of a Nation was born only in the 18th century !
I learned that the concept of the Nation started in the begining of the 16th century.
I like it how all those Germanic peoples joined together peacefully to make one united Civilization! They had been fighting each other for a long time, and yet they were all the same, just holding up a different banner.
Just imagine, without the influence of the Holy Roman Empire, the country of German might of turned out to be a lot of smaller, rival countries.
BTW, how is the American culture different from the European cultures? - I know the Americans have a different culture, but I'm not comepletely sure on exactaly how different, even with all those American movies and shows running through our tellies lol.
Ah, you opened up the can of worms now.
Please explain, that is new for me.
The begining of 16th century ? That was the time of Leonardo da Vinci, of City States in Italy.
Luther is formulating his ideas to reform the Catholic Church, later his ideas will be institutional in founding the Protestantism.
The Turks are on the peak of their power. Sacking the Balkans, capturing Bagdad and Egypt and get defeated only at the gates of Vienna.
Spain is conquering and colonizing the South and Middle Americas . Charles V becomes Emperor of HRE and KIng of Spain and is therefore ruling a realm where the sun never sets (Spanish Colonies) , Magellan circumnavigates the world,
England is still overcoming the terrible losses suffered during the Civil War of the Roses. In general Europe has still not recovered from the Black Death (the Plague) that ravaged through the 15th century ...
.. In a nutshell I do not see much of Nationalism in the beginning of the 16th Century ?
Um, wasn't the black plague starting out in Europe during the 13th century? You see when the first Romani entered Europe (which happened to be in the 13th century) I read somewhere that many of the Eropeans believed that the Romani were the ones who brought the plague...this belief was suposed to be one of early forms of racisim against the Roma in Europe.
Separate names with a comma.