The HRE was Holy, partialy Roman, and an Empire!

TheLastOne36 said:
Cause there's tons of canadian fans. (thousands infact)
Click to expand...

Theres a Canadian disscusion in General Disscusion I think, anyway most of the people who wanted Canada in were Canadians


And I want Poland to be in way before canada
 
r_rolo1 said:
Sorry, but that is wrong. My country was a nation state before Westphalia, and I bevieve that others (like maybe Denmark) were too. Of course that maybe your definition of nation-state is diferent from mine....
Click to expand...

That's true, mea culpa. Portugal might be a prime example for a pre-Westphalian nation-state, with not many instances of internal ethnic strife or civil unrest since its foudation - around the 12th century? I'm not sure about the exact date, though. I suppose you know. :) But, other than that, most other examples are islands (like Japan, for instance).
As far as I know, the common definition of nation-state, is a sovereign, ethnically and culturally mostly homogenous country with an idea about national identity. And there is a clear distinction between the feudal state and a nation-state, as people didn't really identify with their country as a whole in feudal states.
 
the concept of a nation state, in my opinion, is a pathetic attempt by the Europeans to try to separate themselves from one another and act like all of those educators back some years ago: "Hey, we are all special in our own unique ways and we all have our own strengths... and we're all special..." and all that goody stuff.

Ancient Egypt could be considered the first "nation-state" in the traditional sense. China, thereoretically, by the Han Dynasty, though feudualistic in certain natures, could also be considered a "nation-state".
 
The funny thing about nation states is that, in spite of most of the European countries praise it, almost none of them ever were nation states and almost none is. To say the truth, for me Egypt or Iemen (just to give two random examples) are much more nation-state like than UK , France, Germany or even Russia.
 
r_rolo1 said:
The funny thing about nation states is that, in spite of most of the European countries praise it, almost none of them ever were nation states and almost none is. To say the truth, for me Egypt or Iemen (just to give two random examples) are much more nation-state like than UK , France, Germany or even Russia.
Click to expand...

preisely. the concept of nationalism can be flawed at times... school taught me Nationalism was "invented" sometime during the European World Domination Era.

funny thing is, the concept of loyalty to your government has been very very old...

and even so, the actual first true nation-state... or more rahter, nation-empire, was a funky little maritime/land empire named Atlantis, which had the misfortune to have a little water leak one day.
 
Technically, Atlantis was a feudal federation ( one royal family, seven kings, a high council every seven years ) that tried to be a empire ( too bad we don't have the rest of Plato's text...) :p
 
^or... it was a gigantic world dominating imperial federation (emperor + senate)... with tons of colonies around the world, making it the ONLY empire in (unknown and known) history ever to dominate more than 66% of the world.
 
Someone said that you can't be a Holy Christian if you shed the blood of another Christian. Could you please tell what in Christianity bans war against other Christians.

The partialy Roman part I mentioned is not about them being Roman or controling, but for the greater portion of the HRE's history the greater portion of the HRE followed the Pope in Rome.
 
That is the actual test of the Bible I consulted ( King James translation, methinks) and it is in the Old testament ( so should apply to Jews as well) . It's really a no kill order, applied to everyone ( no religion bias )
 
My working idea (which I'm posting everywhere now its crossing my mind) is that the HRE is not so much representing a distinct entity as a movement... those middle age states of Christendom allied to the pope and operating under a kind of Christian law - those that became the Crusader states. Holy Roman Empire then works as a designator because (a) it refers to the area these crusader states emerge from (b) Charlemagne works as a leader as an overlord of western Christendom, even if (according to the particularly picky) he was never ruler of an actual state named as such.

Perhaps 'Christendom' might have been a better term for this civ, but Holy Roman Empire sounds so much grander :)
 
Anyone else annoyed with the fact that we have to tolerate the civ "Holy Roman Empire", which never contained Rome, and the people were Germanic and didn't speak a mediterannean language.

Whereas the Byzantine empire, ruled from New Rome, the ACTUAL sucessors to Rome get called Byzntines, (which was originally an insult!)

The HRE shouldnt be included; there should be more non-European civs in, europe's crowded enough already....
 
Dnomal said:
Anyone else annoyed with the fact that we have to tolerate the civ "Holy Roman Empire", which never contained Rome, and the people were Germanic and didn't speak a mediterannean language.

Whereas the Byzantine empire, ruled from New Rome, the ACTUAL sucessors to Rome get called Byzntines, (which was originally an insult!)

The HRE shouldnt be included; there should be more non-European civs in, europe's crowded enough already....
Click to expand...

Unless this is your very first time browsing the BtS forum, I have no clue why you would think that.:mischief: :p :rolleyes:
 
Anyone else annoyed with the fact that we have to tolerate the civ "Holy Roman Empire", which never contained Rome, and the people were Germanic and didn't speak a mediterannean language.

Whereas the Byzantine empire, ruled from New Rome, the ACTUAL sucessors to Rome get called Byzntines, (which was originally an insult!)

The HRE shouldnt be included; there should be more non-European civs in, europe's crowded enough already....
Click to expand...

there we go... another excellent summary of why HRE ain't good
 
r_rolo1 said:
That is the actual test of the Bible I consulted ( King James translation, methinks) and it is in the Old testament ( so should apply to Jews as well) . It's really a no kill order, applied to everyone ( no religion bias )
Click to expand...

If it said not to murder, why would it mean not kill?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
The Eternal Peace
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
Fins
F
TheSpaceCowboy
Translatio Imperii and the Ages mechanic in Civ VII
Replies
5
Views
754
The_goggles_do_nothing
The_goggles_do_nothing
untitledjuan
Major issues with civilization city-lists and independent power names
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Kwami
K
T
More unique units as suzerain bonuses from city-states
Replies
0
Views
277
The Fanatical
T
B
Civilization splitting and coalition, and merging leaders with governors
Replies
4
Views
920
BlessedBull
B
Back
Top Bottom