Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Krajzen, Aug 21, 2019.
I'd love the see the Normans, with a crusader feel and centered on Sicily.
Umm, Tutsis (Rwanda, Burundi, and parts of Uganda, Tanzania, and the DRC) and Somalis are the two tallest ethnicities by average height globally by a significant margin, actually.
Something's fishy there, because they're all European. And trusting everyone that comes up on a Google search is dubious. Plus, as an avid amateur student of the social sciences, including politics, history, geography, sociology, etc., I have NEVER ONCE heard of, or been referred to, or heard used as a reference of information before, this worldatlas.com site. Also, I've met several ethnic Tutsis and Somalis who are naturalized Canadian citizens, and seen a lot of group photos of them standing with Caucasians (often NGO workers and such), and there's no way on this Green Earth that any European ethnicity has a higher average height. This search result sounds like bunk to me. Plus, Tutsis are officially in the Guiness Book of World Records, a significantly less sketchy and fly-by-night seeming source, as the tallest-on-average ethnicity in the world.
Edit Note: I believe the Tehuelche, indigenous people of the far south of Argentina and Chile - further south than the Mapuche homelands, not as far south as the Yamask dwelling in Tierra del Fuego, have a very noticeably great average height as well, to the point where the early Spanish settlers in the region actually referred to them as "giants."
ANY discussion of "Average Height" has to be adjusted for differences in nutrition, especially infant/childhood nutrition, which can stunt growth and final adult height dramatically. Another problem historically (although I doubt that it applies here) is that measurements were not all the same: famously, the "inch" used by the French in the 18th century was 10% longer than the English "inch", so measurements of the height of French army recruits in the French revolutionary armies, used in several studies, were all off because "Five feet tall" in France was closer to 5 feet 6 inches in England!
1. Al-Andalus: Unrepresented at the moment, depending on how spain is designed could just be an alternate leader but otherwise should be represented.
2. Armenia: Interesting little polity in a sea of Islam, alternate leaders could be used to represent Cilicia/Armenia Minor
3. Bohemia: Often forgotten but prominent kingdom from the middle ages / early renaissance. Could be Represented by Otokar II, Charles IV or Jan Zizka (Who controlled Bohemia during the Hussite wars)
4. Ireland: Neat way to represent the Celts without just generalizing them.
5. Normans: A significant and dynamic force across the mediterranian, could also be an italian civ
For a Bohemian one, I could imagine it like this:
Leader: Charles IV
Leader Ability: Imperial Patronage
Can spend gold equal to 15 percent of the production cost to finish 30 percent of the production of Holy Site, Theater Square and Campus buildings.
(He presided over many infrastructure projects throughout the HRE, especially in Bohemia, with Charles Bridge, St Vitus Cathedral and Charles University to name a few. Without his direct patronage these would not have been possible)
Leader Agenda: The Golden Bull
Always will follow the same set of governments from his Tier 1 government and likes civs who do the same. Dislikes civs who don't do this
(The Golden Bull in the HRE laid down a clean succession for the next four centuries, so this agenda relates to one of achievements he made as HR emperor)
Unique Ability: The Crossroad of Europe
For each mine in the origin city, external trade routes gain plus one gold. Districts placed adjacent to quarriable and minable resources gain minor adjacencies bonuses, major if they are improved.
(Bohemia was an important trade center, being in the center of europe and its hilly terrain yielded riches like silver and tin.)
Unique Improvement: Mostny
(Sorry if this is technically wrong, I couldn't find an accent for y on my keyboard)
A unique improvement that can only be built on a river, and only adjacent to a city center or district. Allows units to move across the river with only one movement point, and external trade routes passing through this city give +2 gold to that city. Gains the walls tourism bonus with Conservation.
(There were many beautiful bridges built in Bohemia, with Charles Bridge being a magnificent example of one. I would imagine this as similiar to the great wall, serving a practical purpose as well as a bonus one.)
Unique Unit: Tabor
Replaces Pike and Shot and is available earlier at Military Tactics. Recieves +10 combat strength when defending against melee units.
There are currently Mod Civs for Andalusia, Ireland and the Normans. That last has William and Rollo as Alternate Leaders, with another Mod that has William as an Alternate Leader for both Normandy and England, a nice touch.
Disclaimer: I haven't tried the Ireland Mod since the latest Patch came out, so cannot confirm whether it still works: a number of the Mod Civs became dicey after that Patch.
Armenia has a spot in my heart for sheer Bull-Headed Obstinance. They named one of their border forts "Kiss My Backside" - in Arabic, so their Moslem opponents would get the message!
Saying Charles IV as a "Bohemian leader," would be like having LBJ as leader for the proposed Texas civ that was being bandied about on the "New Americas Civ's you'd like to see." I seen, have you seen the territory he controlled WITHOUT war or conquest. Also, Holy Roman Emperor is the title he's remembered for by almost everyone historically over his effectively SUBSIDIARY AND TERTIARY title of "King of Bohemia."
I beg to differ. Charles IV helds extreme importance in the Czech history, so great that he is called "the Father of the Country" here. Calling his title of King of Bohemia subsidiary and tertiary would anger the around 11 million Czechs there are in the world Sure, he was the Holy Roman Emperor, but let's be honest, Holy Roman Emperor was not the ruler over all of the German, Italian, Dutch, French and Slavic Duchies that formed the Empire, merely the highest authority in the Empire. Would you put Maria Theresa in charge of Holy Roman Empire rather than Austria in Civ?
The lands he actually controlled may have consisted of smaller Kingdoms, Margraviates and Duchies, but collectively, most of these were collectively known as the lands of the Bohemian Crown, and these were the absolute core lands of his possession when he began his rule, these were the lands where he established the capital of the Holy Roman Empire, where he build the Karlštejn castle to protect the Imperial crown jewels, the and these were the lands he focused on improving for most of his reign. And this was a very great task that demanded great energy to do, as his predecessor, John, may have been a great warrior, but was a horrendous administrator who managed to bring the country into substantial debt and on the verge of financial collapse in exchange for prestige in battles. By the end of Charles IV's reign, Lands of the Bohemian Crown not only expanded, but also turned into marvelous land of architecture, culture, science (he founded the oldest university in Central Europe in Prague) and commerce, and he was even bothered to even learn Czech and to create the Crown of the Saint Wenceslas, the crown of Bohemia. Quite a lot of care for mere tertiary and subsidiary fief, isn't it?
Well, that's a funny point, about "angering 11 million Czechs" over disregarding the descendants of all his other subjects, supporters, and soldiers. In 2005 or so, Nursultan Nazerbeyev, the LONG serving President of Kazakhstan, proclaimed Ackbar, the Mughal Emperor, a national icon of KAZAKHSTAN (by implication, Kazakhstan, ALONE) because of his birth, raising, early years, and early accomplishments in the Astana area. But the fact is, how many Civ players will consider Charles IV a "Czech" leader or Ackbar a "Kazakh" leader, may I ask?
There is a difference between a man being known as Father of the Country by decision and proclamation of one man, and by being considered by such by most of a nation for decades and centuries, you know. That being said, unlike Akbar's early accomplishments in Astana, Charles IV's lifelong work as a ruler focused on improving life in the Lands of Bohemian Crown. About LONG serving of Nazarbayev in the function of President, wasn't he accused of manipulating elections and building authoritanian regime? (Because, you know, it's a bit strange for a President to rule for almost 30 years)
Akbar the Great I consider a Mughal Emperor, for he focused on ruling the Mughal Empire, and Kazakh lands were by no means formed the core of his Empire. He didn't even rule his Empire from there. Charles IV's Lands of the Bohemian Crown, on the other hand, formed the absolute core of the lands he ruled, and he ruled them (and the Holy Roman Empire) from Prague. Then, Mughal Empire was something I would call a state and a civilisation. Holy Roman Empire I do not take for a state nor civilisation (more like an alliance or union of dozens of small duchies, republics, bishoprics, kingdoms, etc., with each having their own rulers, who often kept warring each other, and Emperor was supposed to be some sort of highest authority to keep this mess together, often failing to do it) and if not giving Charles IV the Holy Roman Empire as a Civ, what Civ would it make most sense for him to lead? That's right, you guessed it, Bohemia.
Another notable thing. The only period of time between the "Conquest of Wendish Marches," and the "Velvet Revolution," where there was a sovereign, independent, self-ruling, and sustainable for a notable period Czech nation (which, indeed, was still only Bohemia - Moravia and the Czech-speaking parts of Silesia got screwed here anyways), and not in vassalage to a Germanic, Polish, or Hungarian monarchial institution (such an institution of which Charles IV, by nature, epitomized), or later, as part of unstable, "throw-together," interwar republic with the Slovaks, Ruthenians, Sudeten and Carpathian Germans, and some northern Hungarians, and then a Nazi, and then Soviet puppet state, was the Hussite Kingdom, which was, by it's nature, in direct opposition to the Holy Roman Empire and Roman Catholic Churches as institutions, and thus sworn enemies of the very empowerment Charles IV relied upon in his time.
I don't know that much but what I do know is he was proclaimed King of Bohemia, which would make him a better leader than LBJ would be for Texas, considering his highest position was only a state of Texas when it was already a state in the U.S and not even a governor.
But Bohemia had been a vassal state of various Germanic, Hungarian, and Polish monarchs for centuries at that time, and, other than the Hussite revolt, was not a "sovereign realm," in that period. And a lot of Holy Roman Emperors, Kings of Poland, Kings of Hungary, and Archdukes of Austria (later Austrian Emperors) held the title of King of Bohemia as a separate and distinct title in their (often very long) lists of titles and dignities - but that didn't make Bohemia inherently more of a separate, sovereign nation then than Texas is within the United States.
@Patine I think you might have bounced from my statement that Czechs consider Charles IV father of the country, and thus that I want a purely Czech Civ. I'd maybe really want that, some year or two ago, but by today, I've dug deep enough in history to understand that Germans were also part of the Kingdom I support having in game, and I accept even these Germanic or Polish influences.
Are you aware that Bohemia was possibly the most privileged part of the Empire, with the title of the Kingdom meaning it had basically no obligations to the Emperor? And are you also aware that Charles IV gave Bohemia even stronger position within the Empire by giving it even more privilegia by making it the seat of the Empire and making the King of Bohemia one of the seven Imperial Electors? And it's not like the Holy Roman Emperors had much authority over smaller independent realms without so many privilegia as Bohemia, either, if there could be (and were) internal wars and conflicts within the Empire. So much for Germanic monarchical influence, other than the Habsburg one, obviously.
May I interest you in period of late Přemyslids, then? Slavic dynasty. Vladislaus II managed to gain the title of King. And mind that being a King mattered around that time a lot. Ottokar I gained the hereditary status of the Kingdom. Ottokar II built an empire stretching from present day Bohemia to the Adriatic. Wenceslas II founded one of the strongest currencies of his time, being widely used in whole Central Europe for its stability, and naturally, having the royal monopoly to minting it, and not only he built strong Bohemia, he also bought the throne of Poland for himself, and secured the throne of Hungary for his son (unfortunately, Wenceslaus II died from tuberculosis aged 33 and his son was assassinated aged 16 (and being as young as he was, he was, quite understandably, heirless), which marked the end of Přemyslid rule of Bohemia). Not only this made Bohemia immensely powerful, but also made the King of Bohemia rule over Poland and Hungary, which, around their time, were very great chunks of land. Bohemia may have been nominally under the Holy Roman Emperor, but it itself was seat of great power, and Přemyslids forged one of the mightiest European dynasties around that time.
It's not like I consider Bolesław I or either of our two Jagiellons...
...or Matthias Corvinus among my front choices for leader to represent Bohemia. George of Poděbrady, on the other hand...
You're making it sound as if the First Czechoslovak Republic was some sort of failed state here, you know? I only agree with the Hungarian minority in Czechoslovakia being, well, unfairly placed in the state because of the increddible harshness of the Treaty of Trianon to Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Slovaks, though, were necessary, to create a stronger country in Central Europe, to secure safety of the newly born republic. They have somewhat rightfully complained about Czechs, but it was from the point of lack of autonomy for their part of the Republic, and centralisation of the Republic's matters in Prague. You might be also interested in the fact that Ruthenians did not mind staying under Czechoslovak rule, and never sought independence. The opposite is true, union with Czechoslovakia was welcome and beneficial for them, as Czechs (mostly) travelled there both for tourism (beautiful nature) and for investments, helping to develop infrastructure. The Czechoslovak period was probably the most prosperous time for Carpathian Ruthenia in the century of shifts between Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Soviet Union and Ukraine. The German part is tricky - on one hand, they were possibly the most rebellious (and largest) minority, on the other, even in times of Kingdom of Bohemia, Germans formed part of the population ever since Ottokar II invited them to settle in border lands where he founded new cities. And the Germans in Czechoslovakia didn't really cause any major problems until Hitler came to power in Germany and started talking about creating a Great German Reich where all Germans shall live as the most privileagued people.
And if it was such an unstable state, then it would not have most probably achieved its great successes in culture, science or industry (Czechoslovak products were top class, and Czechoslovakia was one of the most industrious countries in the world). It also managed to stand as an island of democracy in a world turning to fascism and communism, at least until Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany, when problems for Czechoslovakia truly started.
...Eh, no. The Hussites never had a state, unless you mean Kingdom of Bohemia itself, which had a mixed Hussite and Catholic population. The Hussites never declared independence from Bohemia, and apart from the fact that they founded the City of Tábor, they never had any capital. They were a reformed religious movement spread through the Kingdom, with sizable part of them taking their reformation seriously enough to protect/spread it with a weapon after Jan Hus was burned alive in Konstanz. Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor, King of Hungary and nominal King of Bohemia tried, with the help of Pope, who proclaimed five crusades against the Hussites, who, under the lead of brilliant generals, namely Jan Žižka and Prokop the Shaven, managed to beat these, before splitting into radical and moderate wings that started killing each other, until the radicals were defeated at Lipany, ending the Hussite Wars for good. The Hussites than continued to live in Bohemia (and thrive during the time of George of Poděbrady, who tried to rule over both Catholics and Hussites in peace, but Matthias Corvinus and the Pope did not like to see that) until the Habsburgs started their Recatholisation, which peaked after the defeat of Bohemian Protestant estates during the Battle of White Mountain.
I think my point is the EXCLUSITY of Charles IV to Bohemia - or Mattias Corvinus, whom you just mentioned, and why my initial example of LBJ for Texas was used. Charles IV and Mattias Corvinus are not viewed by the great majority of the world as EXCLUSIVLEY Bohemian leaders, to the degree you initially declared for Charles IV, anymore than LBJ as seen as exclusively Texan. These leaders are viewed as most as having mandates of leadership over much broader areas of authority, and the artificial confinement in such a portrayal is, in truth, what I was arguing at against.
Well I can agree on that. My point was it would have made more sense to compare it to an actual governor of the state of Texas, not LBJ.
But the only Governor of Texas who later became President was born, raised, and educated in Connecticut, like his father, despite popular image of both...
Lyndon Johnson is a bit different case though Correct me if I'm wrong, as I do not have great knowledge of American history, but I do not recall him spending lifelong work to turn Texas from indebted state into one of the richest states of the US, nor do I recall him giving Texas any privilegia, and I do not know about him moving capital of the US and the American government to Austin, either. Nor has Texas been the core of the country he had any but nominal power over as the President of the United States of America.
Charles IV on the other hand did spend lifelong work to build a strong Kingdom of Bohemia from the ruin left him by his father, moved the Imperial capital to Prague, gave Prague even more power within the Holy Roman Empire, and Bohemia did form the core of the lands he personally ruled as the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. He may have had nice titles he gained with becoming the Holy Roman Emperor like King of Germany and King of Italy, but those were mere honorific titles, and he never ruled these personally, as, as you might know, Germany and Italy were broken into tiny states with their own rulers. What belonged to him were the rather small Duchy of Luxembourg (home of the House of Luxembourg he belonged to - and no, before pointing that he was not a Czech, him of being of Luxembourgian origin does not stop me from wanting him as leader of Bohemia when we can have Catherine the Great, who was of German origin, as a popular leader choice of Russia), Kingdom of Bohemia, Margraviate of Moravia, Silesia, Lausitz (and later purchased Duchy of Brandenburg), which were all collectively known as Lands of the Bohemian Crown, ergo, belonged under the rule of King of Bohemia and were parts of Kingdom of Bohemia. Do not mistake this Bohemia (bold red), a part of the lands ruled by the King of Bohemia...
...and this Bohemia (everything in green)...
...because I'm talking about Bohemia being the latter, the lands being crown lands, belonging to the Crown of St. Wenceslaus, under direct rule of King of Bohemia.
So, again, I ask, what Civ would you give Charles IV? Holy Roman Empire, which was no Civ at all by Charles IV's reign with its hunderds of semi-independent leaders who fought each other, Luxembourg, which was merely where his house came from, or Bohemia, which formed the absolute majority of the lands he ruled, which he sought to expand and improve, and on which he focused most of his rule? Because we're talking leaders as leaders of Civs, respectively.
So far, you're the only person from this great majority of the world you're talking about that I've ever heard being actively opposed to adding Charles IV as the leader of Bohemia for Civ game.
Separate names with a comma.