French civ ruler in Civ4 : Louis XIV please !

[kryszcztov]

but for a bit of originality philippe auguste is a good choice as the two other, he represent a great period.

Originality ? I thought we had enough of it with Joan of Arc !

if not charles martel can be another choice not a famous period but a great victory, without him europe was muslim.
charlemagne for his huge empire.

Go read the entire thread to find solid arguments against Charles Martel and Charlemagne.

there is another great period but there is no significant leader, under the third republic. the biggest empire the france never had with a part of africa, madagascar, indochina, syria and libia and a lot of island in all the sea.
a great cultural age (artist came of all the world in paris)
a good science (pasteur, frere lumiere,etc) good economy and victorious in the ww1.

The Third Republic was an OK period, but not the powerful period that a golden age should be. You're talking about colonies, France under Louis XIV had its share of the cake too, like in Louisiana, a huuuge territory in America. I agree that culturally, Paris was in the top cities, but scientifically and economically France was OK but not that powerful. And I'm not talking about the industry... nor about the army. The Third Republic was all about catching back after all the events during XIXth century, but it was too late. It brought many good things, but I believe other countries experienced similar pleasures. The "Belle Epoque" may have been the nice result for this, but it was an illusion regarding France's real power. WWI showed that France was behind. We won the war ? Both world wars were won with the critical help by our friends.

 

[malborough]

joan of arc was not an original choice,it was a bad choice.
i dont say france france was the first power in that time but it was among the first.
culturally :first
military : third
empire : second
industry : fourth
science : third or fourth
economic : fourth
england was the first.germany was more powerful than france but his empire was smaller and germans lost the first war.
france won the first war not alone of course, but germany was not alone
austria, turkish...
france lost the second war and that's all .it' s the end of the third republic.
charles martel & charlemagne can be considered as french.
clovis create the first french dinasty. his territory are almost the same as the modern territory, paris become the capital, he institute the king coronation in reims and he convert himself to christianism.
this fact was essential in the constitution of that country.
it was the begenning of france.
charles martel & charlemagne was descendants of clovis so they are french ooops ! frank

 

[kryszcztov]

joan of arc was not an original choice,it was a bad choice.

It was both actually. Original Civ-wise, since we had had Napoleon and Louis before (plus a French queen in Civ2, can't remember who). Bad for all the stated reasons. I just hope I'm not making a bad use of the word "original", I just mean it was new (and odd, to be frank (frank, lol)).

i dont say france france was the first power in that time but it was among the first.
culturally :first
military : third
empire : second
industry : fourth
science : third or fourth
economic : fourth
england was the first.germany was more powerful than france but his empire was smaller and germans lost the first war.

Your stats, which would need better investigation, show France really wasn't at a peak. I mean, look, culture isn't the most relevant field to measure the power of a nation, all the more by modern standards, then we have the empire (colonies), which was France's real power (but still outpowered by the UK), and the rest explains why France almost collapsed during WWI.

france won the first war not alone of course, but germany was not alone
austria, turkish...

Austria quickly collapsed after the Emperor's death. The Ottoman Empire did a fine job against French and English assaults, but was clearly behind the rest. Gemany was able to hold its positions on 2 bloody fronts, one against France + the UK + various small countries, one against the Giant Bear. The war in the east was won in 1917 when Russia became communist. We needed the US to eventually break through German forces. From my point of view, Germany is the most powerful country at the beginning of the XXth century. Its only default is the lack of a great colonial empire (though it had some), but that wasn't the main field to get power apparently. Kind of kudos to Bismark for taking Germany to the lead.

france lost the second war and that's all .it' s the end of the third republic.

We actually won WWII. Though we went through occupation and shame inbetween.

charles martel & charlemagne can be considered as french.
clovis create the first french dinasty. his territory are almost the same as the modern territory, paris become the capital, he institute the king coronation in reims and he convert himself to christianism.
this fact was essential in the constitution of that country.
it was the begenning of france.
charles martel & charlemagne was descendants of clovis so they are french ooops ! frank

They were Frank, so they weren't French. That could be nitpicking, but Charlemagne's empire lead to both France and Germany actually. Paris wasn't the Frank capital under Charlemagne, Aachen was. Though I don't deny that the Frankish heritage was crucial for the beginning of the French kingdom in the IXth and Xth century.

 

[Akka]

They were Frank, so they weren't French. That could be nitpicking, but Charlemagne's empire lead to both France and Germany actually. Paris wasn't the Frank capital under Charlemagne, Aachen was. Though I don't deny that the Frankish heritage was crucial for the beginning of the French kingdom in the IXth and Xth century.

Though I don't think that Charlemagne is of the best choice, I'll disagree with Franks not being the start of France.

 

[Evie]

The problems is not that Frank are not French; France is rather clearly descended from the Franks.

The problem is, Franks were German just as well, and Germany is also clearly descended from them.

So the only sensible things to do with the Franks are either keeping them out of the game entirely, or making them their own civ.

 

[kryszcztov]

The problems is not that Frank are not French; France is rather clearly descended from the Franks.

And we could add that the Frankish kingdom comes from the early northern Frankish tribe and the Gallo-Roman country that was in place before Rome fell to barbs. Does this make Gallo-Romans French ? What about the Gauls themselves ? French history schoolbooks have always stated that our ancestors were the Gauls, but it is partly bull**** (and it was funny to read this in the French colonies). At some point you have to seperate eras and people. France wasn't a kingdom under Charlemagne, because both French and German entities were part of the Franks. Once the Empire split into 3 kingdoms, France began to exist as a nation. But civilizations usually don't end up like that, there is some kind of continuity. But it's not because some Frank characteristics were kept by the French that they are the same thing.

It's just a matter of definition. And dynasties can be very confusing. We all know that the European powers were ruled by a few families, where everyone married everyone...

 

[malborough]

there is a lot of german tribe in this time "goth, wisigoth, ostrogoth, saxon ,alaman, burgonde, vandales ,alains, francs and more
and france didn't exist who are the french ? not celts not romans. in XIIIes we still say francs monarchy and in the crusade francs kingdom of jerusalem. french language still exist since the VIIIes
the francs are the french.
they created a monarchy in france before in germany.
charlemagne before conquered germany was king of francs in a space which seems strangely at the modern france.
after his lineage ruled on germany but the dinasty of carolingians ruled first in france.
and the dinasty who claim the francs heritage was the french dinasty not a germans dinasty, i repeat until the XIIIes the french was called francs not the germans which were in the roman germanic empire.
i think it's a same think for romans and italians, only the italian can say our ancestor romans, same for greek.

 

[Evie]

That's pretty much what I stated. France is *descended* from the Franks, as is Germany, but neither of them *are* the Franks.

Charlemagne, if he was the leader of any civilization in this game, would have to be the leader of the Franks themselves, because France and Germany have about equal claims to being the heirs to his empire (and both certainly consider themselves as such).

 

[Akka]

Gotta fully agree with Malborough.
France starts with Franks.

 

[Evie]

So does Germany as a political entity.

 

[malborough]

Your stats, which would need better investigation, show France really wasn't at a peak. I mean, look, culture isn't the most relevant field to measure the power of a nation, all the more by modern standards, then we have the empire (colonies), which was France's real power (but still outpowered by the UK), and the rest explains why France almost collapsed during WWI.


culture is an important thing, not the most important but important.
an example when the mongols conquered the world they couldn' t established a durable empire because they are a poor culture and they were assimilated by the people they conquered. they became muslim in middle east and chinese in china.
the romans established a durable empire because the people they conquered became romans as the celts by exemple.
and what is staying of the dead empire ? the culture.
the greek culture is still alive not the alexander empire.

i' m not agreed france not collapsed durinng wwI
the germans were stoped in 1914 in the battle of the marne by foch and they lost verdun 2 great victory. they were most powerful but they never couldn't make the difference and win a significative battle.

 

[kryszcztov]

malborough, it seems you don't read my words...

First, I agree with Oda Nobunaga : the French have the Franks as ancestors (but they're not the only ones). I don't know if you saw it, malborough, but I'm French and nothing else (mmmh, I'm European too ), and so I know everything you say about France (except for the Middle Ages, a little). It's a matter of definition : France didn't start to exist on a very special day, but gradually. Still, until Charlemagne there was the Frankish kingdom. Afterwards we had Francia Occidentalis, Francia Orientalis and Media Francia. From then on, Francia Occidentalis became known as France, and didn't suffer any major change in population, territory, etc...

Culture is a very long-term element. A civilization will be successful regarding its culture if it stays alive centuries or millenia afterwards. I don't know how you can apply this to the very short-term event that WWI was. I said that France ALMOST collapsed during WWI. The battle of the Marne was a decisive event to save Paris and France, and lead to the war of the trenches. If it wasn't for British help, France probably wouldn't have faced Germany very long, and Germany had 2 fronts !!! I'm sorry but, even though France may have been a better cultural place at the time, Germany was far superior, its industry and army wasn't matched. To put it short, Germany understood the XXth century where France didn't. 25 years later France lost to Germany in 1 month, showing its real weakness. But that's no surprise : with all the events that happened during the XIXth century, France was more into social advances than industrial revolution.

Now, I agree that the Third Republic was a stable period that brought a lot to the country, but mentalities were stuck in the revenge about Alsace-Lorraine, thanks to Napoleon III's stupidity. One funny example to show you France's backwardness : at the beginning of WWI, French infantry wore colourful uniforms, in the best tradition, so that they were easily spotted by the Germans, who had already changed their uniforms to something more into dark/brown colours. How can you compare that with Louis XIV's reign or even Napoleon's tales, where they faced all Europe ?

 

[Dark Khan]

Napolean Bonaparte should be He is a great leader he is not noble birth but with his skills he became emperor he is one of my idols

 

[malborough]

malborough, it seems you don't read my words...

First, I agree with Oda Nobunaga : the French have the Franks as ancestors (but they're not the only ones). I don't know if you saw it, malborough, but I'm French and nothing else (mmmh, I'm European too ), and so I know everything you say about France (except for the Middle Ages, a little). It's a matter of definition : France didn't start to exist on a very special day, but gradually. Still, until Charlemagne there was the Frankish kingdom. Afterwards we had Francia Occidentalis, Francia Orientalis and Media Francia. From then on, Francia Occidentalis became known as France, and didn't suffer any major change in population, territory, etc...

Culture is a very long-term element. A civilization will be successful regarding its culture if it stays alive centuries or millenia afterwards. I don't know how you can apply this to the very short-term event that WWI was. I said that France ALMOST collapsed during WWI. The battle of the Marne was a decisive event to save Paris and France, and lead to the war of the trenches. If it wasn't for British help, France probably wouldn't have faced Germany very long, and Germany had 2 fronts !!! I'm sorry but, even though France may have been a better cultural place at the time, Germany was far superior, its industry and army wasn't matched. To put it short, Germany understood the XXth century where France didn't. 25 years later France lost to Germany in 1 month, showing its real weakness. But that's no surprise : with all the events that happened during the XIXth century, France was more into social advances than industrial revolution.

Now, I agree that the Third Republic was a stable period that brought a lot to the country, but mentalities were stuck in the revenge about Alsace-Lorraine, thanks to Napoleon III's stupidity. One funny example to show you France's backwardness : at the beginning of WWI, French infantry wore colourful uniforms, in the best tradition, so that they were easily spotted by the Germans, who had already changed their uniforms to something more into dark/brown colours. How can you compare that with Louis XIV's reign or even Napoleon's tales, where they faced all Europe ?

i'm not compare with louis XIV reign i just say it' s a good epoc for france,
but you are right louis XIV it's a better epoc to symbolize france.
indeed germany had to a more powerful army and industry too.
but the result are clear they lost war and their colonial empire has been share between france and england.
bad diplomacy ? bad srategy ? anyway the fact are the fact.

 

[kryszcztov]

indeed germany had to a more powerful army and industry too.
but the result are clear they lost war and their colonial empire has been share between france and england.
bad diplomacy ? bad srategy ? anyway the fact are the fact.

To put it simple : Germany was the most powerful nation in the world, but had to fight France, the UK and Russia at the same time, and later on Russia was "replaced" by the USA. You can be #1 and be defeated by an alliance between #2, #3 and #4. That is what happened. We didn't discuss who won and who lost, we discussed about the relative strength of each nation. And France has always been the weakest nations that had as much potential as the other great European powers.