Napolean?

[Bartholomaï]

I think a good leader is somebody who is smart enough to be surrounded by smart servants (like louis XIV).
Napoleon and Hitler thought they were so smart, they only listened to theirselves.
Killing your own people is the most stupid thing you can do.
Napoleon did killed his people when he went on a campaign to Russia, Moscow.
He left in Paris with an army of 700 000 soldiers, when he saw he lost the battle against the Russians, he quickly returned to Paris, and left his troops alone in the Russia.
Only 70 000 survivors returned to Paris...
The laws he made, every one could have made.
The military tactics he used to conquer Europe, were invented by the Romans 2000 year before.
His naval fleet realy sucked, he lost almost every battle at sea, because there were no tactics he could steal.

Napolean wasn't a good leader, he was just a guy with a lot of charisma, just like Hitler.

 

[Akka]

Gosh, some people are really ignorant and biased to a ridiculous point

I think a good leader is somebody who is smart enough to be surrounded by smart servants (like louis XIV).
Napoleon and Hitler thought they were so smart, they only listened to theirselves.

Napoléon was, in fact, surrounded by very talented people. His marshalls has been promoted through merit, and many of them won battles all by themselves. As for the civilian building, nobody can even whisper that the work Napoléon did wasn't extremely profitable for the country.

Killing your own people is the most stupid thing you can do.
Napoleon did killed his people when he went on a campaign to Russia, Moscow.

That is stupid. Napoléon didn't kill his own soldiers, the Russians (with their systematic "burned ground" tactics) and the winter did.

He left in Paris with an army of 700 000 soldiers, when he saw he lost the battle against the Russians, he quickly returned to Paris, and left his troops alone in the Russia.

The only battle which can be considered "lost" to Russians was the Berezina, and it was already during a dire retreat from the winter...

Only 70 000 survivors returned to Paris...
The laws he made, every one could have made.

You would wonder why not every one had made them before, then

The military tactics he used to conquer Europe, were invented by the Romans 2000 year before.

The tactics he used were often based on artillery. I wasn't aware that Romans used guns

His naval fleet realy sucked, he lost almost every battle at sea, because there were no tactics he could steal.

He didn't lead any naval battle, and I hardly see how he could lost "almost every battle" while there was only one that was fought (Trafalgar)...

Napolean wasn't a good leader, he was just a guy with a lot of charisma, just like Hitler.

I suppose that this alone would have showed how ignorant you are on the subject, if you didn't already proved it during the whole rest of the post

 

[sir_schwick]

Charlemagne was the leader of the Carolingian civilization, which France and Germany were descendants of. Having a Frankish or Carolingian civlization would be a good addition though.

 

[Akka]

Charlemagne was the leader of the Carolingian civilization, which France and Germany were descendants of. Having a Frankish or Carolingian civlization would be a good addition though.

I urge you to read the posts just above yours, just to inform you that "Franks" aren't a distinct civilization from the French.

 

[mitsho]

@sir_schwick YESSS! Finally someone supporting me!

@Akka, you know that I am of another opinion, but really it has to do something with definitions...

mfG m

 

[onedreamer]

Charlemagne was the leader of the Carolingian civilization, which France and Germany were descendants of. Having a Frankish or Carolingian civlization would be a good addition though.

Oh.. please... carolingian is a civilization only in the Anno Domini Mod. In the REAL HISTORY it's a DINASTY.

How the heck can we confuse a dinasty with a civilization now ? Please...

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Sorry but your knowledge about Frankish and French history needs SERIOUS re-reading. Stating that Germany was born from the Franks is ludicrous.
Like I already told you and someone else repeated, Charlemagne conquered much of the modern Germany lands from germanic populations. That was a temporary holding of Frank people of "foreign" land.

No, YOU need to do the re-reading.
I copmpletey fail to understand how somehow could claim Carolus Magnus (to avoid using a incorrect language ) would be a French ruler. Neither he was a German one, of course.
The Frankish heartlands in his time were pretty exactly what ended as Burgundy in 843 (minus Italy), plus the Isle de France and the Main region in Germany. In short, the Rhine and Maas region.
No arguing about Carolus occupating Saxony in a bloody war, but for Bavaria the situation was no different than for the Romanic parts of France.
And, the Franks are Germanics anyway. And very well there were 'Eastern Franks' - the German Rhine/Main region (Frankfurt...). I'm one of them myself, btw.
The Burgundian territories were German for the next centuries as well (they only were occupied by France after the devastating 30 Year War).

 

[onedreamer]

No, YOU need to do the re-reading. [...]
And, the Franks are Germanics anyway. And very well there were 'Eastern Franks' - the German Rhine/Main region (Frankfurt...). I'm one of them myself, btw. [...]

Hehe, sure Doc. I suppose that since History is not a science we could all go ahead 200 pages writing what we think is right or not. We could state that what is written here and there on History books is simply Myht. I could waste some more lines to describe you how the name of Frankfurt doesn't prove in any way that Franks were germanic populations, but since it's quite evident it would be in vain, who cares anymore ? Bah.

 

[Djarum Kretek]

Napoleon and Louis XIV are just the perfect options for me. If I dislike one, I'll choose the other. Done.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

...doesn't prove in any way that Franks were germanic popula

We may agree to disagree in the rest easily, but what else should the Franks have been but Germanics? Celts? A race for their own?

 

[Akka]

The Franks were, at their origins, germanic tribes, yes.
But they settled in Gaul, and with their union with the native gallo-roman populations and their conversion to chritianity, Franks became the first "French".
This union is symbolized by the coronation of Clovis as a christian king.

Now, people could say that they are as much ancestors of Germans as French, but it's like saying that the Mongol Empire gave birth to China, as it conquered it, and it, later, broke away from the Empire.

Franks and French aren't separate. They are like Roman and Byzantine, but even more related, as Roman and Byzantine were in different lands and had languages with different roots.
There is NO definite differences between Franks and French (as I pointed earlier, the French were still called "Franks" in the 1300s).

 

[Furius]

Of course there is a difference... Franks spoke Frankish which was a Germanic language conquered Gallo-Roman lands and the two groups became France (Much as Normans and Angles became England).

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

The Franks were, at their origins, germanic tribes, yes.
But they settled in Gaul, and with their union with the native gallo-roman populations and their conversion to chritianity, Franks became the first "French".
This union is symbolized by the coronation of Clovis as a christian king.

Now, people could say that they are as much ancestors of Germans as French, but it's like saying that the Mongol Empire gave birth to China, as it conquered it, and it, later, broke away from the Empire.

Franks and French aren't separate. They are like Roman and Byzantine, but even more related, as Roman and Byzantine were in different lands and had languages with different roots.
There is NO definite differences between Franks and French (as I pointed earlier, the French were still called "Franks" in the 1300s).

Seriously, I do value your opinion high normally, but that is a real crap argument.

So, the Romans after Caesar intermingled with the Gauls there. And they spoke the same language. Followong your analogy, the Provencials would be the real Romans, and those in Italy do no longer desrve that name?
The Franks started the Great Migration in the Rhine area. And some of them stayed there - and you tell me those are no real Franks?

The Mongol analogy would be exactly the other way around - in your POV, Mongols should be called Chinese, since the occupied large parts of China...

French were still called "Franks" in the 1300s

Yes and no. The 'Franks' of that time were the N French and Belgs. Nobody would have called the people of the Provence, Aquitaine etc 'Franks'. And with the very same argument you operate:
Germans are still called 'Franks' today! Now that should convince everyone...

Where do you learn such root-of-nation myths? That really is as odd as the Kaiserreich German 'Cheruscian' nonsense. Or the Goths with Sweden.
Europe is a huge melting pot - we have Celtic roots in Germany, Germanic heritage in Spain and Italy, Roman roots in France. It's a really strange national bias to claim "We are the only real XY, the rest doesn't deserve that name".
Carolus would qualify for France, Germany and Belgium to the same degree - in other words, he doesn't really qualify as leader of any of those. Even the last chauvinistic French should wonder why in such a case the correct capital would be a German city.

 

[Akka]

Seriously, I do value your opinion high normally, but that is a real crap argument.

So, the Romans after Caesar intermingled with the Gauls there. And they spoke the same language. Followong your analogy, the Provencials would be the real Romans, and those in Italy do no longer desrve that name?
The Franks started the Great Migration in the Rhine area. And some of them stayed there - and you tell me those are no real Franks?

I don't see how you can comes up to such a conclusion.

Let me sum it up :
The Franks were originally a germanic tribe.
They then migrated and occupied the northern part of France, Belgium and a small part of Germany (around the Rhine).
After that and several other barbarians migrations, they slowly took over (mainly with Clovis) the rest of France.

At this time, they had (and were practically uniques on this regard) almost completely melted together with the gallo-romans in Gaul (many gallo-roman were proud to call themselves "Franks", while the Franks had borrowed most of the customs, titles and so on of the decaying roman empire). They spoke a bastardized version of the low-latin, converted to chritianism and, despite been several time fractionned into several political entities (due to the splitting of the kingdom between all the heirs of the king), the people felt part of the "Regnum Francorum".
All this set them apart the other barbarian kingdoms (like the Vandals, the Ostrogoths, the Wisigoths, the Burgonds and so on), who were practically never able to actually MERGE with the populations.

After a while, here comes Charlemagnes, who conquered the actual Germany.

There was fierce resistance from the germanic tribes leaving here, which were never fully assimilated into the Frankish empire, spoke germanic language, opposed to the latin-based language of the Franks, and the religious conversion took a long time. The core of the empire was still around Paris (capital of the kingdom since even before Clovis) and Aix-la-Chapelle (also in France).
You can then notice that the Franks had a different culture, language and religion than the germanic tribes conquered, as well as a different ethnicity (already more than 350 years of mixing with the gallo-roman population), while the conquest of the germanic territories happened less than 50 years before, and without settlement of Frankish population, UNLIKE what happened in France.

All in all, it seems pretty clear that the germanic part of the Charlemagnes' empire were simply occupied territories that broke away from this empire to follow their own, germanic-based, path, while the western part of the empire were ACTUALLY populated by the so-called "Frankish", and became roughly the modern France.

As such, Charlemagnes' empire is no more the origin of Germany than Persia is the origin of Greece, regardless of the fact that both Germany and Persia were conquered at a time by the former empires.
Different cultures, populations and languages seems pretty obviously proving it.

Carolus would qualify for France, Germany and Belgium to the same degree - in other words, he doesn't really qualify as leader of any of those. Even the last chauvinistic French should wonder why in such a case the correct capital would be a German city.

As I said above, Germany has a, well, germanic culture, while the Franks, at the time of the Charlemagnes' empire, has already massively merged with the gallo-roman population since CENTURIES and had just added some bits of germanic touches to a overwhelmingly latin-based heritage.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Aix-la-Chapelle (also in France).

Get a map. The only time this city was in France was from 1794-1815.

It's futile to discuss further without - the duchies of Lower and Upper Burgundy with their capitals Cologne and Trier were genuine German territory until after the 30 year war. Have a look at how far those those territories extended to the West. Then you'll see how little of the Frankish territory was considered 'French' before the 19th century.

It also is becoming ridiculous to deny that a core region of Germany was always called Franken. Your whole argumentation the French would equal the Franks is 'because they were called Franks'....

 

[Akka]

Get a map. The only time this city was in France was from 1794-1815.

It's futile to discuss further without - the duchies of Lower and Upper Burgundy with their capitals Cologne and Trier were genuine German territory until after the 30 year war. Have a look at how far those those territories extended to the West. Then you'll see how little of the Frankish territory was considered 'French' before the 19th century.

It also is becoming ridiculous to deny that a core region of Germany was always called Franken. Your whole argumentation the French would equal the Franks is 'because they were called Franks'....

I don't deny this, nor do I deny that there was a LOT of Frank territory in Germany (roughly the whole northen part of Germany).
I simply says that the Regnum Francorum saw a total merging of the Franks into the local Gallo-roman population, which gave birth to a new culture, a new language and a new kingdom, which gave directly birth to France, and only INdirectly to Germany.
You focus on the territory, while I focus on the cultural identity, which is far more important in a civilization. The cultural identity of the assimilated Franks in Gaul, and germanic tribes, is hugely different, and can be easily checked simply by the use of the language, which was mainly LATIN for Franks and mainly GERMANIC for the others.

To take a last, and probably the best example I can think of : Franks are to Germany what Romans are to France. They are fundamental to the apparition of the civilization, but they aren't part of the same.

 

[Sickman]

Interesting debate over semantics going on here (who's frank and who's not)but I don't touch the subject otherwise just want to say that the borders of culture, people and civilizations weren't or aren't that obvious as in Civilization the game. And language factor is way overrated in the whole discussion of European cultures just like in the many of the recent philosophical ideas in Europe.

What comes to Napoleon,
he was just another egoistic madman with quite honestly magnificent strategic and tactical skills of warfare. He dreamed of many things just like Hitler and was ready to make necessary "sacrifices" the reach the goals. He was sure to waste some men of the opponent and sure to waste some men of his own. OF course the wanderlust for power and conquers led him to his final defeat.

As historical figure he stands as large as Julius Caesar and should be the most obvious choice for one of the French leaders. In my opinion guilty of "massacre" doesn't make one obsolete to be leader in civilization. Otherwise we would have to remove lot of leaders from the game.

 

[Azash]

Looks like I remembered something wrong.. Sorry!

 

[Chazbagel]

I think that they should have all of these leaders in the game! Hell, throw in Patton, Churchill and every other military leader that ever won a war, or conquered a lot of land, and lost almost all of it months later!

Hitler will never be in the game.
Napoleon might, i dont know.

But modders can make every leader we want, so why worry?

although, churchill wouldn't be a bad choice for a leader.... :-/

 

[The Q-Meister]

Napoleon might, i dont know.

Napoleon WILL be in the game. It's official. Go look up the pre-release information page on this website. I think Napoleon and Louis XIV are INFINITELY better options than Joan D'Arc.

And until someone can explain to me why Montezuma consistently gets to be the leader of the Aztecs (other than, well he's the only one we know! Which is a ridiculously bad reason) then I fail to see how we can critisize ANYONE else for not being that great. Montezuma was in charge when the Spanish ENDED their civilization! Do you get that? ENDED! Not "lost the war" Not "ruined the economy" Not even "lost a lot of battles" or "killed lots of people!" He ruled over the total DESTRUCTION of his civilization! Period! There is no way that he can possibly be the greatest leader of the Aztecs or any civilization!

I don't want to get too off topic here, but if anyone reads about HOW foolish Montezuma was when dealing with Cortez it's really incredible! First, he believes Cortez is some white God and allows him to penetrate deeper into his country. Let's him come into his capital! And doesn't realize until it is far too late what his true intentions were! It's just not being conquered but being tricked and fooled while being conquered to END your civilizations which is truly the humiliating and inexcusable part for me.

So as long as Montezuma, the worst leader ever in the history of the Civ franchises, gets a nod, I don't think we can talk about anyone else.