Prussia confirmed instead of Germany

[Lord Lakely]

No kidding, I'm picking up Civ 7 modding just for this

Oh i'm definitely not playing without the Rosetta mod that will hopefully FIX all these AWFUL city names that you CANNOT CHANGE.

(i am hoping firaxis reads this )

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Interesting decision to go with Prussia over unified Germany. It makes some sense though, since Firaxis seems to be going with mainly 19th century incarnations of civs as the starting point for the Modern Age (Tsarist Russia, post-Bourbon French Empire, Siam instead of Thailand). I think it also moves away from the idea that "Germany has to represent fascism" which is frankly a terrible thing to pigeonhole Germany into in a game that's themed around exploring alternative routes through history.

Even if they used unified Germany, I'm sure they'd just use the name German Empire, which only lasted until the end of WWI.

 

[Biologist]

Even if they used unified Germany, I'm sure they'd just use the name German Empire, which only lasted until the end of WWI.

Yeah, that's honestly what I expected as well. Maybe they felt that would have obligated them to use Bismarck again.

 

[chaosprophet]

The nomenclature is absolutely across the board. If anything, I'd expect that civs with less generalized names to reflect the eventual inclusion of predecessor or successor civs, while civs with more generalized names, like Spain or Persia, to remain single-Age entities.

While I agree, they can always rename a civ later if they want to add a different version. In particular Persia, where just would need to add another name to it "Achaemenid Persia" instead of changing the name to something different.

 

[Evie]

Firaxis: "This is the era that focuses on tanks and all those world war units and all the end-age achievements are related to things that happened right after the Second World War"

Also Firaxis: "But Germany won't be in it because we need them for a different era".

I already despised the idea of the Fourth Era, but watching the (now obvious) bending themselves into a pretzel Firaxis is performing to have modern era civs that leave room for the Contemporary Era (French Empire, Prussia...), I've become absolutely convinced that ending the game short of contemporary time was just plain a horrendous decision, and it's one that's starting to have a serious impact on my interest in the game.

Honestly if you wanted four era (which I still don't) ending the Third era around the time of the First World War (which was by all rational means far closer to the game's idea of a crisis than the Second) rather than the Second would actually have made much more sense. That gives you a lot of major state transition in very close proximity : Qing to China, Russia to Soviet Union, the dismantling of both Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empires, while still giving plenty of room for post-1945 decolonized states to be included. And Germany wise, there is a far stronger argument for considering WW I Germany to still be largely Prussian ; that argument sink into the ether when you try to apply it to WW II Germany.

 

[untitledjuan]

And the emblem relates to Castille just to rub it in.

Back when Spain was revealed and we didn't know much about the modern era, it was speculated that Habsburg or Bourbon Spain would feel out of place, but if anything it looks like a "SPAIN" civ should be around Napoleon, Frederick, Catherine and Mexico.

I really hope that Spain is eventually broken into two separate civs, Castille can have the Reconquista and American exploration and conquistadors, and Spain can have the Siglo de Oro and Tercios. heck I would absolutely buy a DLC that does this and adds El Cid as a leader.

I do agree, it seems now that the "Modern Era" starts somewhere around 1700 and Spain only began to exist after 1716. Maybe, due to the icon being the symbol of Castile, they did planned to include it under the name of Castile, but changed their minds at some point and just named it Spain instead.

Castile would work very well as a late Medieval representation for Iberia, with features related to the Reconquista/religion and exploration. Then, a "Modern Era" Spain civilization, based on Bourbon Spain and 20th century Spain, could focus more on culture (with figures such as Picasso, Dalí, Goya, Gaudí, etc.) and have the Sagrada Familia as a their wonder. After all, Spain is one of the most visited countries by tourist in the present and left a huge cultural impact in places such as the USA, Latin America and the Philippines, with Spanish being the second most spoken language in terms of native speakerd after Mandarin Chinese.

 

[untitledjuan]

Probably because they are thinking of a 4th Age Germany (and also "Germany" at the last part of the Modern Age has some unfortunate associations that Prussia doesn't have)

At least in modern-day Germany, many people associate Prussian militarism with the Nazi regime. Even the military forces of present-day Germany have tried to distance themselves from the "Prussian traditions" that the army of them had, due to them associating those to the Nazis.

 

[AriochIV]

The Modern Age run roughly 1750-1950. "Germany" didn't exist until 1871, so it doesn't seem like a big deal to call the civilization "Prussia."

From a gameplay perspective, you don't want to focus on aspects of the civilization that only come at the very end of the Age, because that kind of defeats the purpose. For that reason, something like a unique Submarine or Tank would be a terrible choice, since they come at the very end of the Age and wouldn't have the Age-long impact they want for their uniques. So it makes more sense to choose something from the earlier Prussian period.

 

[untitledjuan]

From Wikipedia: "The dynastic union of the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon in 1479 under the Catholic Monarchs is often considered the de facto unification of Spain as a nation state." Is this completely wrong? Because it seems like Spain existed well before 1716 in a widely-recognized fashion. Similarly, the Habsburg Spanish Empire is dated to 1492. The English didn't face the Castilian Armada, they faced the Spanish Armada. Seems like there's plenty of justification for calling the civ "Spain" and not "Castile" even if Castile is a major influence/component of the Spanish state represented in-game.

What happened in 1479 was the creation of a personal union, which means that Castile and Aragon remained completely separate countries with separate parliaments, laws and citizenship policies. The Castilians were considered foreigners in Aragon and viceversa. The colonies in the New World were Castilian, which meant that Aragonese colonists couldn't legally settle in them. That's the reason why Castilian is spoken in Latin America and not Catalan or Aragonese.

The only link they had was having the same person as their king/queen. Similar to how Charles III is king of the UK and Canada, but in no way are Canada and the UK a single nation. From 1479 to 1716, Castile and Aragon were in the same situation as England and Scotland were from 1603 to 1707. They had the same person as monarch, but were separate nations. To claim that Spain began existing in 1479 is like claiming that the UK began existing in 1603.

The Kingdom of Spain only began existing in the legal sense, that is with a single unified parliament, common laws and a common Spanish citizenship, after the Nueva Planta Decrees of 1716. The whole War of Spanish Succession had to be fought in order for this change to be implemented and the Catalans fiercely oppossed this definitive union.

The Armada that fought the English in 1588 was a coalition of Navies from the nations rulled by Philip II (Castile, Portugal, Aragon, Sicily, etc.)

However, especially after the Bourbons became the ruling dynasty of a unified Spain after the War of Spanish Succession, there has been the official government narrative (especially under Franco's dictatorship), that Spanish was magically born in 1479 due to the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand. While it was indeed a first step towards unification, real unification would be a long and difficult progress that would only solidify in 1716.

However, after 1516, during the reign of Charles V, the monarchs of Castile and Aragón did start using the title of "King of Spain", but they did so following a Medieval tradition in which the most powerful monarch of Iberia would assume this title (or the title of Emperor of Spain), to indicate that he had some form of superior authority in what was the former Roman province of Hispania, even if other separate kingdoms still existed in the region.

Also, using the term Spanish to talk about the kingdoms ruled by the monarch of Castile became usual as well and the Renaissance English did it a lot. It was easier to refer to all of them as Spanish, rather than Castilians, Aragonese, Catalans, Valencians, Galicians, Basques, Portuguese (during the Iberian Union), etc.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Ooh, this one I like. What was that old saying...."Prussia is not a country with an army; Prussia is an army with a country".

 

[FORRREST]

Probably because they are thinking of a 4th Age Germany (and also "Germany" at the last part of the Modern Age has some unfortunate associations that Prussia doesn't have)

Some say Prussia *was* the unfortunate association. Churchill and others said "prussian militarism" was the thing that had to be deleted out of germany following WWII.

 

[Biologist]

What happened in 1479 was the creation of a personal union, which means that Castile and Aragon remained completely separate countries with separate parliaments, laws and citizenship policies. The Castilians were considered foreigners in Aragon and viceversa. The colonies in the New World were Castilian, which meant that Aragonese colonists couldn't legally settle in them. That's the reason why Castilian is spoken in Latin America and not Catalan or Aragonese.

The only link they had was having the same person as their king/queen. Similar to how Charles III is king of the UK and Canada, but in no way are Canada and the UK a single nation. From 1479 to 1716, Castile and Aragon were in the same situation as England and Scotland were from 1603 to 1707. They had the same person as monarch, but were separate nations. To claim that Spain began existing in 1479 is like claiming that the UK began existing in 1603.

The Kingdom of Spain only began existing in the legal sense, that is with a single unified parliament, common laws and a common Spanish citizenship, after the Nueva Planta Decrees of 1716. The whole War of Spanish Succession had to be fought in order for this change to be implemented and the Catalans fiercely oppossed this definitive union.

The Armada that fought the English in 1588 was a coalition of Navies from the nations rulled by Philip II (Castile, Portugal, Aragon, Sicily, etc.)

However, especially after the Bourbons became the ruling dynasty of a unified Spain after the War of Spanish Succession, there has been the official government narrative (especially under Franco's dictatorship), that Spanish was magically born in 1479 due to the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand. While it was indeed a first step towards unification, real unification would be a long and difficult progress that would only solidify in 1716.

However, after 1516, during the reign of Charles V, the monarchs of Castile and Aragón did start using the title of "King of Spain", but they did so following a Medieval tradition in which the most powerful monarch of Iberia would assume this title (or the title of Emperor of Spain), to indicate that he had some form of superior authority in what was the former Roman province of Hispania, even if other separate kingdoms still existed in the region.

Also, using the term Spanish to talk about the kingdoms ruled by the monarch of Castile became usual as well and the Renaissance English did it a lot. It was easier to refer to all of them as Spanish, rather than Castilians, Aragonese, Catalans, Valencians, Galicians, Basques, Portuguese (during the Iberian Union), etc.

Would Iberian Union then be a more accurate term than "Spain" to describe the era and political reality they're trying to express? I feel like "Castile" by itself still wouldn't communicate to a lot of people exactly what is being represented, but then, I'm no expert on Iberian culture and history and I'm well aware that a lot of the cultures that comprise modern Spain have their own view of things.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What happened in 1479 was the creation of a personal union, which means that Castile and Aragon remained completely separate countries with separate parliaments, laws and citizenship policies. The Castilians were considered foreigners in Aragon and viceversa. The colonies in the New World were Castilian, which meant that Aragonese colonists couldn't legally settle in them. That's the reason why Castilian is spoken in Latin America and not Catalan or Aragonese.

The only link they had was having the same person as their king/queen. Similar to how Charles III is king of the UK and Canada, but in no way are Canada and the UK a single nation. From 1479 to 1716, Castile and Aragon were in the same situation as England and Scotland were from 1603 to 1707. They had the same person as monarch, but were separate nations. To claim that Spain began existing in 1479 is like claiming that the UK began existing in 1603.

The Kingdom of Spain only began existing in the legal sense, that is with a single unified parliament, common laws and a common Spanish citizenship, after the Nueva Planta Decrees of 1716. The whole War of Spanish Succession had to be fought in order for this change to be implemented and the Catalans fiercely oppossed this definitive union.

The Armada that fought the English in 1588 was a coalition of Navies from the nations rulled by Philip II (Castile, Portugal, Aragon, Sicily, etc.)

However, especially after the Bourbons became the ruling dynasty of a unified Spain after the War of Spanish Succession, there has been the official government narrative (especially under Franco's dictatorship), that Spanish was magically born in 1479 due to the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand. While it was indeed a first step towards unification, real unification would be a long and difficult progress that would only solidify in 1716.

However, after 1516, during the reign of Charles V, the monarchs of Castile and Aragón did start using the title of "King of Spain", but they did so following a Medieval tradition in which the most powerful monarch of Iberia would assume this title (or the title of Emperor of Spain), to indicate that he had some form of superior authority in what was the former Roman province of Hispania, even if other separate kingdoms still existed in the region.

Also, using the term Spanish to talk about the kingdoms ruled by the monarch of Castile became usual as well and the Renaissance English did it a lot. It was easier to refer to all of them as Spanish, rather than Castilians, Aragonese, Catalans, Valencians, Galicians, Basques, Portuguese (during the Iberian Union), etc.

None of that mattered in past games, as basically all of Spain's uniques and attributes existed in the late 1400s to 1500s. Modern Spain probably isn't even on the devs radar at this point, so that's probably the reason they went with the more familiar name of Spain, rather than Castille, even though it might be more accurate.

Would Iberian Union then be a more accurate term than "Spain" to describe the era and political reality they're trying to express? I feel like "Castile" by itself still wouldn't communicate to a lot of people exactly what is being represented, but then, I'm no expert on Iberian culture and history and I'm well aware that a lot of the cultures that comprise modern Spain have their own view of things.

It's still historically known as the Spanish Empire starting in 1492. I personally think either name, whether it being Spanish Empire or Castille, is accurate.

 

[C0rsair]

Im sure there are folks who are unhappy with this choice. I like it a lot, though. Firaxis is 99% likely to add Germany at some point anyway, but Prussia on the other hand, was not a guaranteed choice.

 

[Bast]

4th age would have controversial leaders and civs. And Civ doesn't really do controversial. I mean I thought Stalin was a bold choice. But I can't see a 4th age. I'd rather they flesh out the 3 ages and give it more civs.

 

[Acepox]

Spotted in a YouTube video, Rome unlocks Prussia.
Makes sense as we’ve seen Freddie but this confirms there is no Germany and no Britain.

I win, suckas.

 

[Acepox]

None of that mattered in past games, as basically all of Spain's uniques and attributes existed in the late 1400s to 1500s. Modern Spain probably isn't even on the devs radar at this point, so that's probably the reason they went with the more familiar name of Spain, rather than Castille, even though it might be more accurate.

It's still historically known as the Spanish Empire starting in 1492. I personally think either name, whether it being Spanish Empire or Castille, is accurate.

Spanish Empire would've made much more sense than French empire in Civ 7, given their in-game identities.

 

[hoplite_fan]

I've become absolutely convinced that ending the game short of contemporary time was just plain a horrendous decision, and it's one that's starting to have a serious impact on my interest in the game.

I think it's fine,

Air combat and air interception mechanics in civ games were always absolutely atrocious, better if they leave this part out for now, and come back to it later when they got them worked out

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

The unlock of Germany would be capturing Versailles. Versailles is not in the game therefore no German.

 

[JNR13]

I don't think the game needs modern Germany with Prussia in. We had Britain represented in Civ VI by Queen Victoria leading "England". Having the German Empire represented within a "Prussia" civ is fine, at least until 1918 Prussia dominated the empire and the unification was just half unification and half Prussia annexing everything anyway. Not calling the civ "Germany" but "Prussia" helps anchoring it decisively in its age separate from a medieval German civ I expect to come eventually.

As previously mentioned though, it's really weird they didn't do this for Spain - it should totally be "Castille" for the same reason.