Should Firaxis Bring Back Stalin

Stalin in Civ

  • Yes I miss him.

    Votes: 4 15.4%
  • No lol???

    Votes: 22 84.6%

  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,192
Location
Ottawa, Ontario

You're wrong, Henri. Absolutely, completely and utterly. The term "Kingdom of Germany" has existed since at least the eleventh century - a thousand years ago - and possibly earlier.

Bismarck did not, in fact, create Germany.

Oh, and from the Frederick Barbarossa article on Wiki also : He was elected King of Germany in Frankfurt on 4 March 1152

King of Germany. Frederick was King of Germany
. Do you think that perhaps maybe that might qualify as a leader of the German civilization?
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
I don't think so, I think the concept of China (中国) is so ancient as Xia dinasty. 2205-1818 a.C.
The difference is the name Zhong Guo is very generic, who just means central country. That's the why any dynasty who rules the territory see it's self as China.
So the Qin Shi Huang claim to be chinese leader is very solid.
Otherwise the Barbarossa can't be a German leader, because he lived at a time before the born of germany, that is anacronic.
Barbarrosa could be leader of the Holly Roman Empire, but if the HRE become a civ Charlermagne should be a better leader.
So Chinese nationalist narrative is fine, but German nationalist narrative is bad.:rolleyes: You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If the Qin dynasty can be equated with China after 2,200 years, it's beyond petty to argue that the German principalities cannot be equated with Germany after 1,000.
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,192
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
And just utterly embarassing to argue that somene who was king of Germany cannot lead Germany because Germany did not exist back then.
 

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,085
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
So Chinese nationalist narrative is fine, but German nationalist narrative is bad.:rolleyes:
German nationalism is always a bad thing, it can lead to Nazism.
As you can see in this video, even Angela Merkel rejects the German patriotic symbols because she know how the nationalism is a terrible thing for germans.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
9,035
German nationalism is always a bad thing, it can lead to Nazism.
As you can see in this video, even Angela Merkel rejects the German patriotic symbols because she know how the nationalism is a terrible thing for germans.
Nationalism of any sort in any country can lead to bad things. And, again, the key word is CAN, as well.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,192
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Yes, Henri, clearly Barbarossa, King of Germany, cannot lead Germany because Hitler.
 

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,085
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
Yes, Henri, clearly Barbarossa, King of Germany, cannot lead Germany because Hitler.
I don't said that, I said it's anacronic Barbarossa leads Germany because the German state just become a thing in the XIX century.
I speak about the Nazi when @Zaarin compare the chinese and german nationalism.
Of course every kind of high nationalism sucks!
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,192
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Explain to me, again, Henri, very slowly, how Barbarossa could be crowned King of Germany if Germany didn't exist yet.

Because he was.
That was one of his official title at the time. He's called by that title in medieval texts. He was King of Germany.

It's not anachronistic for the King of Germany to lead the German civilization. For crying out loud.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,797
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
The German timeline:
In 843 CE the Regnum Francorum (Kingdom of the Franks) was divided into the Kingdom of the Franks and the Kingdom of the East Franks (rex Francorum orientalium)
The leader of the East Francian kingdom was Ludwig der Deutsche, or Louis the German. He was known at the time (reigned 843 to 876 CE) as Rex Germaniae - King of Germany (Reference: Wilson, Peter. Heart of Europe. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press 2016, page 256). At the time, "Germany" was simply considered to be part of the larger Frankish realm but in fact, like the other divisions, it was an independent state.

The earliest use of the term King of the Germans (rex Teutonicorum) is supposed to have been in reference to Henry IV (ruled 1084 - 1105 CE) but in fact, his father Henry III (Heinrich III) was referred to by this title during his reign (1046 - 1056 CE) (Reference: Smythe, Alfred P. Medieval Europeans: studies in ethnic identity and national perspectives in medieval Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, 1998, page 64)

The point being, there was an identified nation of Germany and Germans 1200 - 1000 years ago. The fact that it was politically fragmented for most of the time after that is of no importance whatsoever.

IF you want to argue that it is important, then you would also have to admit that China has also not been a nation for large parts of its history either. I refer you to the periods in which China has also been fragmented politically:
The "Warring States" 256 - 221 BCE
The Three Kingdoms period 220 - 260 CE
The Sixteen Kingdoms period 302 - 439 CE
The Northern and Southern Dynasties ca 386 - 589 CE
The Ten Kingdoms 907 - 979 CE
- Not to mention the various Foreign Dynasties in which China was not ruled by Chinese, which total an even longer period of "Chinese" history.
- And of course, you would also have to admit that Greece has not been a nation under a single leader except when it was conquered by foreigners before the early 19th century.
 

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,085
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
IF you want to argue that it is important, then you would also have to admit that China has also not been a nation for large parts of its history either. I refer you to the periods in which China has also been fragmented politically:
The "Warring States" 256 - 221 BCE
The Three Kingdoms period 220 - 260 CE
The Sixteen Kingdoms period 302 - 439 CE
The Northern and Southern Dynasties ca 386 - 589 CE
The Ten Kingdoms 907 - 979 CE
- Not to mention the various Foreign Dynasties in which China was not ruled by Chinese, which total an even longer period of "Chinese" history.
But the concept of China, Zhong Guo, 中国 was in the minds of the people even in this periods as Warring states, 3kingdoms, 16 kingdom... and so on.
By chinese philosofy, the China will ever broken and re-united again... That means the comunist china will fall down some day, but the China will re-united again and again.

The earliest use of the term King of the Germans (rex Teutonicorum) is supposed to have been in reference to Henry IV (ruled 1084 - 1105 CE) but in fact, his father Henry III (Heinrich III) was referred to by this title during his reign (1046 - 1056 CE) (Reference: Smythe, Alfred P. Medieval Europeans: studies in ethnic identity and national perspectives in medieval Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, 1998, page 64)
Why Henry I and II didn't was German kings also?

And these kings at these times have so many titles, I guess Barbarrosa was also king of Italy.... So that means he can be an alternative leader to Italy too.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,797
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
But the concept of China, Zhong Guo, 中国 was in the minds of the people even in this periods as Warring states, 3kingdoms, 16 kingdom... and so on.
By chinese philosofy, the China will ever broken and re-united again... That means the comunist china will fall down some day, but the China will re-united again and again.


Why Henry I and II didn't was German kings also?

And these kings at these times have so many titles, I guess Barbarrosa was also king of Italy.... So that means he can be an alternative leader to Italy too.

I'm impressed: you can tell what was in the minds of people 2500 years ago. I can only sometimes tell what my wife is thinking today . . .

In fact, while the term Zhong Guo was in use as far back as the Zhou Dynasty, its meaning even in the fragmentary written sources keeps changing. It was not until the Song Dynasty (960 CE) that writers start using the term to mean the 'trans-dynastic' civilization with a common ancestry, language, and culture and a set territory (Reference: Tackett, Nicolas, Origins of the Chinese Nation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, pages 4 - 280). Before that, it could mean anything from the capital city to the region around the capital to a limited geographical area of the Chinese feuding states - and sometimes, as in Han Dynasty records, it could be used with all three meanings depending on context.

What the people thought of this is unknown and unknowable, but in popular writing (primarily poetry) which might be a possible indicator, more often the dynastic names: Han, Tang, Great Qing, etc are used instead of any 'generic' term for 'China'.

In that, then, China is Identical to Germany. Neither peoples had any concept of political loyalty to any generic Chinese/German civilization until very recently (Zhong Quo is first used as an official term in a Chinese government document in 1689 CE in the Treaty of Nerchinsk by the Qing to mean China as governed by the Qing, which makes it actually Later than the concept of an official Kingdom of Germany, which appears in the historical record 800 years earlier). Both were identified and self-identified themselves according to their cultural and linguistic similarities - the Chinese as far back as the Warring States and the Germans at least as far back as 200 BCE, when Roman writers begin identfying a distinct and recognizable group of tribes with similar languages, customs and appearance as "Teutons" or Germans - but no political unity at all.
 
Top Bottom