Napolean?

[onedreamer]

1- so if I say that Joan of Arc or Cleopatra were actually myths then they shouldn't be included in a game where myths are part of the game itself ?
2- how many ? and how many of them were we talking about here ?
3- where did I write it ?
--> In my opinion, I disproved it. It was exactly Charlemagne to conquer most of the modern Germany. He conquered Bavary, Saxony and other german regions (inhabited by real germanic populations) I don't know how to spell The Capital of his reign was not in Germany. His dinasty was not germanic. The words Frank and France have quite some assonance to my ears. The empire of Franks was the first that unified the modern french territory. When can you date the birth of "France" ?

 

[onedreamer]

And his reign did not extend to modern Germany, cause neither France nor Germany existed then, I believe.

excuse me ?

 

[yannoche]

1.Just don't care if he existed or not, plus Cleopatra's sooo hot!

2.Wasn't sur we were talking about the same dude

3.Well it's just that its "capital" was inbetween the 2 modern countries (aix la Chapelle", i think?), but he did not less conquer France than Germany: think France was born with the first "Franc" king...

yeah well, don't really bother anyway.. I think he'd be a perfect leader too, be it for france or Germany!!

 

[yannoche]

excuse me ?

allright, i do excuse you!

 

[mitsho]

France was born with the treaty of Versailles 843 AD or the one of Ribemont 880 AD, when the Big empire of Charles the Great/Charlemagne/the Franks split up into the Kingdoms of Western Franks (=France) and Eastern Franks (=Germany). The Eastern Franks then continued to grow eastwards, occupying more and more of 'Germany', grew into the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, while the Western Franks slowly developed into the Kingdom of France.

And to your question where the other Charles the great are, the habsburg had quite a lot of 'Karls'. and now I gotta leave.

 

[yannoche]

If only they could. Actually not the French, just the Parisians.

Close shave!
...
is this happening?
Do I have a big nose?

 

[Himalia]

Lots of valid points in there but back to Napoleon i see no reason why he shouldnt be included in the game as a leader head. Afterall its just a game. Like for Germany they could use Adolf Hitler. This is not a judgement on France or Germnay many countires have someone or thing in there history of which they may prefer to simply forget or not talk about. But historically they are and always will be very important.

 

[Chazbagel]

If it wasnt for hitler, Germany wouldn't be where they are today (Not a 3rd world country) Before Hitler was in power, German money was worth near nothing.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

If it wasnt for hitler, Germany wouldn't be where they are today (Not a 3rd world country) Before Hitler was in power, German money was worth near nothing.

[sarcasm]Oh ya, Hitler was a great leader. Except for that whole holocaust thing. But besides that, he was fantastic![/sarcasm]

 

[Azash]

I'm certain Andrew, by saying Hitler salvaged Germany's economy, really meant, in some secret code, that Hitler was a saint. Grow up.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

The point is, any good Hitler achieved during his rule is seriously outweighed by the evil.

 

[Azash]

Yes, what he and the others did is unacceptable and shows the worst of humanity. But the way Hitler pulled Germany out of the 100-million-for-an-egg inflation, and, unfortunately, the propaganda exercised by the nazis is impressive - what they did with it was not.

 

[Urederra]

The point is, any good Hitler achieved during his rule is seriously outweighed by the evil.

Very good sentence, but it can be applied to many civ III and civ IV leaders. Seriously, I have read the threads about Hitler and Napoleon and I still do not see the difference between Hitler and others like Mao. Maybe It is because Hitler lost the war?

What would have happened If Hitler had won the war?, Would he be in civ IV?

 

[ironduck]

Yes, what he and the others did is unacceptable and shows the worst of humanity. But the way Hitler pulled Germany out of the 100-million-for-an-egg inflation, and, unfortunately, the propaganda exercised by the nazis is impressive - what they did with it was not.

What are you talking about? They hyper inflation in Germany was in the 1920s. Gustav Stresemann ended that with the Rentenmark.

Hitler's economic 'claim to fame' was the fact that he borrowed Germany up to the hilt, spent the money on infrastructure and arms, and then robbed everyone else before Germany could go bankrupt.

AND: Even if Hitler was some kind of economic saviour for Germany (which he was not by any stretch), Germany was bombed into ashes by the time WW2 was over. It was rebuilt from scratch, largely with money from other countries, not least the Marshall plan.

 

[Akka]

France was born with the treaty of Versailles 843 AD or the one of Ribemont 880 AD, when the Big empire of Charles the Great/Charlemagne/the Franks split up into the Kingdoms of Western Franks (=France) and Eastern Franks (=Germany). The Eastern Franks then continued to grow eastwards, occupying more and more of 'Germany', grew into the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, while the Western Franks slowly developed into the Kingdom of France.

Some little nitpicking

It's treaty of Verdun, not Versailles. The splitting was made between THREE kingdoms (West Francia (France), Central Francia (Italy) and East Francia (Germany)). And there were no "Eastern Franks", as these lands were populated by German tribes. The Franks were mainly in the western Francia.

If the Verdun treaty is considered quite important, it's because it's the oldest document written in something that is somehow "french language". The birth of France is otherwise dated as 476 (or 576, I don't remember), when Clovis was crowned King of the Franks.


As for the thread : I can't believe that idiots here are putting on the same level Napolean (who was, admitedly, an overly ambitious and megalomaniac conqueror willing to let thousand of people be killed in battle for his ego, but who was otherwise religiously tolerant, without any trace of racism, an incredible civilian builder, and not interested in blood but victory) and Hitler (who was industrialy killing people simply because of their races and origins, with a murderous temper and a lust for slaughter).
This is plainly ridiculous.
Napoleon is no angel, but he didn't had a policy of promoting deshumanization, ethnic cleansing or even massacres (the most controversial part of his reign was the Spain War, in which there WERE countless massacres, but it was an - admitedly, unjust - war to keep military and political control, not to kill a people).

 

[mitsho]

@akka, there are so many treaty of versailles that I typed it in, I'm so used to it. However there are far less treaties of Verdun which I wanted to type in...
And as you have seen, I put Verdun as the first option, because it's much more known than Ribemont which was one of the last treaties which finally divided the Kingdom of Franks into France and Germany.
That's my other point,

Written by AkkaThe birth of France is otherwise dated as 476 (or 576, I don't remember), when Clovis was crowned King of the Franks.

You exactly say it, Clovis was king of the Franks, his empire was frankish! But out of this empire, two modern nations (and some little shot-off in addition) were born, France and Germany! So, the treaty of Ribemont is the point where these two empires were born, before, it was the empire of the Franks!
Of course, on can say that France was born with the coronation of Clovis, but as was Germany then! And that's not what i wanted to say.

mfG mitsho

 

[Akka]

You exactly say it, Clovis was king of the Franks, his empire was frankish! But out of this empire, two modern nations (and some little shot-off in addition) were born, France and Germany! So, the treaty of Ribemont is the point where these two empires were born, before, it was the empire of the Franks!
Of course, on can say that France was born with the coronation of Clovis, but as was Germany then! And that's not what i wanted to say.

Well, not really

As I said, the people that actually lived in the eastern part of the frankish empire, were actually germanic tribes. These ones were the real ancestors of the actual Germans. They were conquered by Charlemagnes, but not really assimilated (there was revolts and slaughters due to that). The split of the empire did, in fact, separated again Germanic tribes and Franks.
In fact, during the middle-ages, "Frank" was how French were called. It was only through the evolution of spoken language that "Francie" became "France" and "Francs" became "François", and then, much later, "Français".

Additionnally, at the coronation of Clovis, the Frankish occupied an area roughly equivalent at the actual France. Charlemagne expanded it to the south-east and east, and it shrunk back smaller than before after the treaty, but at the coronation of Clovis, most part of the germanic tribes which will become German, and most part of the territory which will become Germany, weren't included in the Frank territory.

 

[onedreamer]

France was born with the treaty of Versailles 843 AD or the one of Ribemont 880 AD, when the Big empire of Charles the Great/Charlemagne/the Franks split up into the Kingdoms of Western Franks (=France) and Eastern Franks (=Germany). The Eastern Franks then continued to grow eastwards, occupying more and more of 'Germany', grew into the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, while the Western Franks slowly developed into the Kingdom of France.

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. What you are stating is the same as saying that since Napoleon conquered half Europe, then that half of Europe is French, and Napoleon could represent France as well as Italy or other countries because during his reign France extended to these countries in the modern world. Pffft.

And to your question where the other Charles the great are, the habsburg had quite a lot of 'Karls'. and now I gotta leave.

Which of them was called Karl the Great ?

 

[mitsho]

But you are forgetting one fact: In the Dark AGes, there were no nations, no clear boundaries where there, so when Charlemagne 'conquered' it, it was made Frankish land, and it belonged to the Franks until about AD 880, that's more than hundred years! You know how long Napoleon reigned?
And my biggest point is that later on, the first German Kings were Franks (until they died out). Germany started as a split-off of the Frankish Empire, as France started as one. Of course, France continued the cultural heritage, whereas Germany went a bit more back to its roots, but still start is start. The really important thing is (why I came to that topic), that Charlemagne can be listed and was (due to some nationalism) on the list of German Kings,
I'll get back to the "Karl the Great" thing later on, am not sure about that one though atm.

@Akka, Yeah, sorry, I got carried away with the clovis argument, wrote without thinking... you got me.

with regards, mitsho

 

[onedreamer]

I found Charlemagne on the list of French kings. At that age, Germany did not have a real unity and identy, while France was starting to have. That's my main point for having Charlemagne as the Leader of France. Because his dinasty was the one who contributed to the birth of France (it may have contributed to the birth of other modern countries too, but that is normal in History. Barbarians contributed in the birth of many nations too.) and he is the most representative (at least IMO) of his dinasty. I seriously doubt he can be listed as King of a country that didn't even have an identity yet. Anyways, his capital was in France. His "knights", heroes like the legendary Roland were surely not german or germanic. The frank culture is not germanic, Germans have other traditions. Anyways, if you can go as far as listing Charlemagne as king of Germany, you CERTAINLY can do the same about France. Hence he is a legitimate leader for France. Don't forget that Napoleon had italian heritage