Is it just me, or, is anyone else worried about the French?

[lazyguy]

The fact that they invaded England successfully in 1066 means that the English and therefore the American English are really of french decent.

Actually the Normans were Vikings.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, they were Vikings a long time before. I don't think they were French either, but it's quite a bit more complicated than that. The Normans spoke French and were vassals of the French King (or the West Frankish King, I know some people who cringe at calling anyone "French" at this point). Sure, they might have not been very good vassals, but I don't think the Angevins were very good vassals either. But, since the King tried to fight Duke William, I feel it pretty much absolved his ties, so I wouldn't consider him French.

 

[lazyguy]

I got why people think Jeanne d'Arc won the Hundred Years War. It started in 1337 and eneded in 1453, Jeanne d'Arc is considered to be born 1412, lead France from 1429 and was captured in 1430. The french had victories in the war before she was even born and the war lasted 23 years after she was captured.

In short the Hundred Years War doesn't count, because the french were led by a frenchwoman during 2 years of a war lasting 116 years.

Also link to french victories.

Try telling that to Koei...

 

[SlothMD]

Everyone forgets Napoleon and the subsequent beating down of Europe when they make france jokes.

Perhaps because Napoleon was Corsican, not French.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Did you even read this thread? At the very least, you would see that your point was mentioned (even if you disagree with those refuting it).

 

[Xen]

Thats not the same thing. Schwarzenegger was born in Austria which is a seperate country. Nappy was born in Corsica, a province of France. Two different things.

I'm not so sure that they are, really. Corisca may have been a province of France - but its hardly 'French' under any definition other then to where capital the taxes go to.

 

[Thormodr]

This whole discussion over whether Napoleon was French or not is totally ridiculous. As noted below, the idea of nationalism didn't come until after Napoleon's birth.

Was Napoleon Bonaparte French or Italian (Genoan)?

On 15 May, 1768, France and Genoa signed a treaty, under the terms of which France was to take possession of Corsica and keep it until Genoa could pay back what it owed to France. In reality, France bought Corsica, spending 40 million livres. Then on 15 August of the same year an edict was passed linking Corsica to France. Some of Napoleon Bonaparte's detractors declared that he was not French because he was born in 1768 and not 1769, and that his date of birth had been falsified, it being unthinkable that the Emperor of the French not be French himself. However, no serious proof has ever been produced to challenge the accepted date of 1769.

It should also be noted that at the time of Napoleon Bonaparte's birth, the idea of "nationality" did not exist in practical terms: one was simply the subject of the King, and certainly not a citizen of the nation. In 1790, with Corsica becoming a département of France, the island's inhabitants became "French citizens".

http://www.napoleon.org/en/essential_napoleon/faq/index.asp

 

[Jerrymander]

Can Napoleon provide a birth certificate? Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[The Tollan]

It appears that the French civilization ability does help you get more social policies. This write-up from Wenz is the source.

If that remains the case in the final version then there is a strong chance I will try out the French first in Civ V. I like the idea of getting a lot of social policies.

The French Foreign Legion is an interesting unique unit too.

 

[Louis XXIV]

This whole discussion over whether Napoleon was French or not is totally ridiculous. As noted below, the idea of nationalism didn't come until after Napoleon's birth.



http://www.napoleon.org/en/essential_napoleon/faq/index.asp

While absolutely true, the same could be said about someone from Brittany or the Occitan region. Were they French? Before the Revolution, all that could be said is that they were French subjects. The Revolution made them all French and, certainly, some acted with more enthusiasm than others in establishing their Frenchness. Napoleon certainly earned his nationality that he was more or less legally given (whether in 1768 or 1790 is debatable, of course) when given the opportunity.

 

[Lyoncet]

It appears that the French civilization ability does help you get more social policies. This write-up from Wenz is the source.

That's pretty well-known. Social policies are bought with Culture Points, and the French SA generates extra culture points. It's not a "you get your 1st policy this much earlier, 2nd policy this much earlier" relationship as the sentence I assume you're referring to makes it sound; rather, each French city before Steam Power gives an extra 2 culture per turn.

 

[Venereus]

That's pretty well-known. Social policies are bought with Culture Points, and the French SA generates extra culture points. It's not a "you get your 1st policy this much earlier, 2nd policy this much earlier" relationship as the sentence I assume you're referring to makes it sound; rather, each French city before Steam Power gives an extra 2 culture per turn.

Yeah, also I remember some previewer from Gamescon saying you got you first SP around turn 25, but that it would be turn 8 if you were the French.

 

[The Tollan]

That's pretty well-known. Social policies are bought with Culture Points, and the French SA generates extra culture points. It's not a "you get your 1st policy this much earlier, 2nd policy this much earlier" relationship as the sentence I assume you're referring to makes it sound; rather, each French city before Steam Power gives an extra 2 culture per turn.

Yes, true. I was aware that the policies cost culture points but I vaguely remembered the post I quote below (from page 1 of this thread) after skimming the thread and wasn't entirely sure about the French ability as a result.

I think it will make a huge difference if the +2 culture per city goes straight to the civ-wide pool, or if its accumulated and helps to pop borders. If its the former, its rather handy; but if its the later, it's crushingly powerful.

While I don't think Ancien Regime is unstoppably powerful, it sounds like it will definitely be useful. Something about being able to buy more SPs through the greater cultural generation seems very appealing.. Perhaps the ability to purchase custom boosts is part of it.

The SP system looks as if it has that addictive, "must have one more.." type characteristic to it..

 

[Thyrwyn]

That was me. I wasn't sure if that +2 culture went to each city and the civ-wide pool, or just the civ-wide pool. I assumed it could be used Social Policies; I was unsure if it could also be used to expand borders.

 

[stealth_nsk]

So can it be used to expand borders or not?

Logically it could be used as any other city culture. But description isn't clear here.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Exactly - we can assume it can, but I hesitate to jump to conclusions

 

[Xen]

This whole discussion over whether Napoleon was French or not is totally ridiculous. As noted below, the idea of nationalism didn't come until after Napoleon's birth.



http://www.napoleon.org/en/essential_napoleon/faq/index.asp

If you're talking about Italy and Germany, that statement is by and large the truth; if you're talking about France, England, Spain, Portugal and Scandanavia? Not so much, as the ethnic identities of these nations were forged and defined as their monarchies clashed against foes internal and external - while the specific idea of a 'nation state' would only emerge after (and in many ways, because of) Napoleon, the idea of Ethnic French had already been around for some time - itself as a result of the hundred years war, as one of the after -effects of the hundred years war.

The Italians and the Germans meanwhile, so divided as they were were more reminiscent of the ancient Greeks; a nebulous understanding that they were all 'Italian', or 'German' but no greater political implications then that; for the greater nations present, the unification of the cultural territories lead to a mindset perhaps more reminiscent of the ancient Romans; 'We are Romans acting for the glory of Rome, embodied by the Emperor'

The concept of the nation-state didnt just 'pop up' as a big surprise after Napoleon, nor is it a surprise that the two areas this concept affected most were Italy, Germany and the Empires of Austria and the Ottomans. It was precisely because the identities of the older, more unified countries had already been defined - and able to impose themselves on those who were not- that made the desire for Ethnic states so strong in the 19th centuries.

The real poster child for these developments, is of course France, followed by Portugal - England to a lesser extent, because its merger with the Scots and Welsh, and the 'Angilization' of these areas to an extent in many was approximates a nation-state, but the the 'nation' in question being the understanding of a unified state of three similar cultures, with a similar description for Spain, and how the Scandinavian countries all define themselves against one another

 

[spyroware]

The real poster child for these developments, is of course France, followed by Portugal - England to a lesser extent

I'm not sure I can follow you here. Why would Portugal be a poster child for the above? It's been a textbook nation-state all these centuries but really, in another throw of history they could've been just as well the kingdom that united with Castille to form Spain. The Portuguese as per the then Iberian politics aren't really that different from the Aragonese or Leonese-Galicians. Obviously they survived on their own but they were a regional identity compared to the French larger-than-life ethnogenetic consolidation.

New Monarchs indeed homogenised and centralised their domains but in reality the concept of nation in the political sense was successful only in post 100-Y-W France. English unification was never that much of an ethnic matter but a political one. Unless you're referring to the Union of the Crowns where any notion of nation is totally invalid. It can only be described as an extremely asymmetric union with English(-Norman) as the leitkultur. Perhaps the success of the French model was because of the relative symmetry between Île-de-France+West, Occitania and Burgundy. Spain on the other hand is a failed nation state, the regionalism just never stopped existing. It was in reality a practical rather than cultural merger of two entities already having unresolved regionalism issues: Aragon-Catalonia and Leon-Castille.

As for Ancient Greece, it's actually Scandinavia that comes the closest. Language continuum check, shared origins and epics check, enough cultural differentiation to warrant regionalism check. They even had a colony system as well.

Napoleon was from Corsica, and regional identities in Italy have always been very strong, ergo he shouldn't be the leader of France.. well this is just wrong. I won't go down the pop culture road of thing like "I don't do labels" but do we have to be such bigots? Adopted indentity/assimilation does exist but at the end is Napoleon's birthplace that important? He became emperor of France and all of his conquests were advancing France's causes. Wasn't Cleopatra advancings Egypt's causes too? Catherine expanding in the name of Russia? Disraeli vying for the preservation of the British Empire? They were great leaders, different origins or not.

 

[Wani]

Not so much, as the ethnic identities of these nations were forged and defined as their monarchies clashed against foes internal and external - while the specific idea of a 'nation state' would only emerge after (and in many ways, because of) Napoleon, the idea of Ethnic French had already been around for some time - itself as a result of the hundred years war, as one of the after -effects of the hundred years war.

Most of the french subjects/citizens during the Revolution of 1789 did not even speak french (which is basically why noone in France at that time would have argued that Napoleon was not "french" because he spoke with an accent), the concept of "ethnic french" came much later. I would argue it came from the Dreyfus Affair. I think you underestimate the importance of the State (especially from Louis XIV onwards) in the creation of the french "nation".

 

[Louis XXIV]

There's a reason why Louis XVI was forced (before the whole fleeing, getting arrested, and being executed thing) to change his title from King of France to Emperor of the French. Before that, France was a state that was the personal property of the King. Everyone who lived in it were subjects of this King. Some of the people here spoke Breton, some spoke Occitan, and some spoke Corsu (I think only something like 3 million out of 25 million spoke Parisian French).

I acknowledge that this is different than pointing to an Italy or a Germany, which didn't even have a concept of a unified state, but I'm pointing out that there wasn't necessarily a concept of a unified nation (the theory of the Nation-State was in its infancy in 1789). Napoleon was French by the same standards as someone from Brittany and Provence were French. French didn't mean you had to be raised by French-speaking parents in a historically French area of France.