The Holy Roman Empire? Seriously?!

[fed1943]

It is as Locutus said.

I just do not understand how the fellow got time to learn History,

Law, Languages, Math and Computers.

Best regards,

[lockstep]

I don't like the inclusion of the HRE, even if Charlemagne deserves to be a Civ leader. Wouldn't it have been possible to allow Charlemagne as leader for both the French and the Germans with the restriction that he may not be choosen for both civs at the same time?

Originally posted by Locutus
If you make Charlemagne French you (a) have 4 French leaders while lots of other civs still have only 1, as you pointed out yourself (and you need De Gaulle for the WW2 scenario)

I'm not in the "Hitler must be included in Civ4" camp, but you can surely see where your argument about De Gaulle leads.

Just set the bPlayable and bAIPlayable values for the HRE in CivilizationInfos.xml to 0 and you never even need to be reminded that the game shipped with the HRE, while you still get to enjoy all the other good stuff that's in there.

Thanks, I will consider doing that.

[Will9]

Originally posted by CyberShy
@Hebrews
I think that the Hebrews really really deserve to be in the game. Maybe they're small but their cultural impact on the world is huge, if not only for the reason that 2 of the major world religions (Christianity, Islam) have their offspring in some way in the Hebrew history. Not to start about their scientific influence in modern days, 160 noble price winners anyone!!??. And obviously their impact in modern times regarding the Middle East Problem.

It's a pitty that there are still no Hebrews in since there are many interesting scenarios waiting!
They're most probably not in b/c political reasons, and the fear for antisemitism. But once again, Judaism is in the game as a religion, and there haven't been huge islamitic demonstrations in front of the Firaxis office because "Saladin converted to Judaism" so far anyway. (Not to mention that I couldn't spread Islam to Arabia in one of my last games )

The first Alphabet was the Hebrew Alphabet. The Hebrew Alphabet was the basis for the Greek Alphabet which was the basis for the for the Latin Alphabet which was the basis for the alphabets almost all European languages.

[Robert Plomp]

I don't think that the Hebrew alphabet is the oldest (known) alphabet, neither is it the oldest 3rd generation language either, as far as I have been informed.

[Will9]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I don't think that the Hebrew alphabet is the oldest (known) alphabet, neither is it the oldest 3rd generation language either, as far as I have been informed.

Mesopotamia and Egypt each had text before the Hebrews, but it was heirogliphic texts.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by lockstep
I'm not in the "Hitler must be included in Civ4" camp, but you can surely see where your argument about De Gaulle leads.

This question should be thoroughly discussed in a separate thread.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Locutus

He's called Charlemagne because that was his name: that is the Latinised version of his name and Latin was the lingua franca in those days (his native name was in some ancient Franconian language that doesn't exist anymore, I don't know if we know even what he was called in that). He's called that or something similar to that in most major European languages (French, English, Spanish, Italian), so most of the world knows him as such. Only in German, Scandinavian and Dutch is his name a variation of Karl der Große. If you never heard of the name Charlemagne that is an error on your side, not Firaxis's.

Wait a second here, Locutus. Latin for Charles the Great is "Carolus Magnus." "Charlemagne" is the later French derivation of that. Since Old Frankish was a Germanic tongue, it is assumed that his original name was something similar to Karl der Grosse.

By the way, here is something interesting -- Charlemagne's signature (or rather, the four awkward letters around the central diamond is his sig):

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Will9


The first Alphabet was the Hebrew Alphabet. The Hebrew Alphabet was the basis for the Greek Alphabet which was the basis for the for the Latin Alphabet which was the basis for the alphabets almost all European languages.

The first alphabet was Phoenician. The Hebrews and Greeks refined it. That's also why the Bible is called that: after the Phoenician city of Byblos, where the Western alphabet may have begun.

Alexander: where do you find all of this? You're a wealth of info! BTW, the signature looks like the consonants of the Latinized "Karolus" - KRLS, no vowels.

[Solver]

IIRC, though, Charlemagne's original Frankish name isn't actually known. Something like Karl der Grosse could be plausible, though - he was an extremely tall man by contemporary standards.

[Thedrin]

I've always been of the opinion that he was most certainly a French leader. Making him a German leader [warning: bad attempt at historical analogy] is like making the King/PM of England during the seven years war the leader of the Americans.

But the solution to complaints is simpler than creating a whole new civ for Charlemagne: make him a leader of both the French and the Germans.

I may not like the inclusion of the HRE flavour but they will be the first civ I play as in BtS. Their unique unit and building look like they will make a very powerful pre gunpowder civ and Charlemagne - the only protective leader to start off with hunting - should have no trouble getting to that stage of the game.

CyberShy:
Can someone explain to me why Poland is considered to be a 'major' civ? I don't want to be cruel against the Polish people, but seriously..........

Because there are a number of vocal Poles at CFC.

Will9:
The first Alphabet was the Hebrew Alphabet. The Hebrew Alphabet was the basis for the Greek Alphabet which was the basis for the for the Latin Alphabet which was the basis for the alphabets almost all European languages.

You're confusing Semitic with Hebrew.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Virdrago
BTW, the signature looks like the consonants of the Latinized "Karolus" - KRLS, no vowels.

This indicates, that he was neither French nor German, but most likely Polish.

[Guynemer]

If I had my druthers, the HRE would be gone, Charlemagne would be a new leader (for France ideally), and there would be two "Native American" civs, either the Lakota (Sioux), Iroquois, or Anasazi.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Virdrago

Alexander: where do you find all of this? You're a wealth of info! BTW, the signature looks like the consonants of the Latinized "Karolus" - KRLS, no vowels.

Heh. I saw it once many years ago, and finding it online was just a Google search away. Thanks for the compliment, btw.
This signature has been heavily debated. If it was just the Latin without vowels, it would have had a "C" instead of the "K." But if it's the Old Frankish, why the "S?" Some think it says "Karl's" or "Karol's." Other's think the diamond is an "A." Regardless, it's some form of his name.

Originally posted by Solver
IIRC, though, Charlemagne's original Frankish name isn't actually known. Something like Karl der Grosse could be plausible, though - he was an extremely tall man by contemporary standards.

Around 6'4" if memory serves. He was "Great" in every sense of the word. He was literally, as one of my old history professors put it, "Big Chuck." (Incidentally, this professor was an expert of Carolingian and early German history.)

Originally posted by Thedrin
I've always been of the opinion that he was most certainly a French leader. Making him a German leader [warning: bad attempt at historical analogy] is like making the King/PM of England during the seven years war the leader of the Americans.

But the solution to complaints is simpler than creating a whole new civ for Charlemagne: make him a leader of both the French and the Germans.

Charlemagne was the leader of both the French and the Germans.

The national identity of these groups was still forming when he reigned over them. The two major groups in his original empire were the "West Franks" in what is now eastern France, with Gallo-Roman influences, and the "East Franks" in what is now the German Rhineland, influenced by more heavily Germanic neighbors like the Bavarians, Swabians and Saxons who were later incorporated into the realm by Charlemagne.

A few generations after his death, without Charlemagne's strong unifying charisma and power, the diversifying national identities began to assert themselves more strongly, and his empire was ethnically split into east, west, and central, each ruled by one of three brothers, all his grandsons.

So you had France, speaking a Latinized tongue and ruled by Charles the Bald; Germany, speaking a Germanic tongue and ruled by Louis the German; and Lotharingia, an attempt at a third kingdom, named after its namesake Lothar and comprised mostly of the original Frankish homelands in Western Germany, centered on the city Aachen (still in Germany today). The third kingdom would eventually by subsumed by the other two.

At any rate, Charlemagne cannot be classified as exclusively French or German, as he was most definitely both.

I think the reason that Firaxis chose to make the HRE its own civ was that IMHO they didn't want to have the same leader for 2 civs, and they didn't want to anger either French or German players by giving Big Chuck to one or the other. So, a strange compromise.

[Thedrin]

At any rate, Charlemagne cannot be classified as exclusively French or German, as he was most definitely both.

I tend to view the Germany that's in CivIV as Prussian led Germany. I don't really see Charlemagne as a leader there but ti does work for the France in CivIV.

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Thedrin


I tend to view the Germany that's in CivIV as Prussian led Germany.

I do, too. Which is why I modded in Konigsberg, Danzig, Breslau, and Stettin. And I also added the old Ukrainian cities to Russia, since Russia started out in the Ukraine and the cossacks were centred there... damn modern political correctness

But I'm OT.

The reason Charlemagne was "Frankish" was because he was the leader of the "West Franks" and the "East Franks" together. They split up when he died, and the West and East became France and Germany later, over time. That's why I feel Franks would have been better than HRE.

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Alexander I


Heh. I saw it once many years ago, and finding it online was just a Google search away. Thanks for the compliment, btw.
This signature has been heavily debated. If it was just the Latin without vowels, it would have had a "C" instead of the "K." But if it's the Old Frankish, why the "S?" Some think it says "Karl's" or "Karol's." Other's think the diamond is an "A." Regardless, it's some form of his name.

Yeah, I saw this in a book years ago. I read about how the diamond might be an "A". It also can be an "A" and an "O". You know more than I do about it, though, since I get most of my info from the library, having not gone through university history classes (except for African).

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Virdrago

Yeah, I saw this in a book years ago. I read about how the diamond might be an "A". It also can be an "A" and an "O". You know more than I do about it, though, since I get most of my info from the library, having not gone through university history classes (except for African).

Yes, it could be both an A and an O. It could also have a U in there too, which is why some think it's Karl, some Karol, and some Karolus. Messy.

However, at this late date, as the founder of two great nations, Charlemagne has really become all things to all people. Truly a deserving leader for Civ.

Congratulations for your great accomplishments, Karl/Karol/Karolus/Charles! You can now be in a computer game! Top Honors!

[Virdrago]

Took long enough!

[Locutus]

Originally posted by lockstep
I'm not in the "Hitler must be included in Civ4" camp, but you can surely see where your argument about De Gaulle leads.

They can't include Hitler or Hirohito for legal reasons. Might arguably suck for gameplay/accuracy/atmophere/whatever reasons, but it's a nice and clean out for Firaxis If I'm not mistaken every other major WWII leader *is* now in the game though (except Mussolini, but there's no Italian civ and Mussolini of the Romans would be rather silly).

Originally posted by Alexander I
Wait a second here, Locutus. Latin for Charles the Great is "Carolus Magnus." "Charlemagne" is the later French derivation of that. Since Old Frankish was a Germanic tongue, it is assumed that his original name was something similar to Karl der Grosse.

Then it's a Francification of a Latinisation. Fact is, we don't know his native name, but Charlemagne and variants is by far what he is most widely known by today, which is what my point was.

Originally posted by Alexander I
Charlemagne was the leader of both the French and the Germans.

That is one interpretation. As you said, the nationalities were very much in flux at that time, you're imposing modern concepts on medieval people.

Charlemagne ruled an empire that was strongly focused on northern France, with cities like Rheims, Paris, Soissons, Tournai, etc as his powerbase. His particular brand of Franks had been living in France since before the fall of the Roman empire and differed in no way from the early French (in fact many argue that the first real French king was Clovis I, a predecessor of Charlemagne who lived 300 years prior), it's fair to consider them French rather than German, as hard as it is to impose such modern concepts on those people.

Charlemagne only conquered most of what is today Germany during his lifetime. He (and his grandson Louis the German) definitely created the foundation of what would much later become the German nation (so calling him the Father of Germany as he's sometimes referred to kind of makes sense) but to say he was a German leader is a bit of a stretch. So IMO he was definitely the leader of the French, but saying he was leader of the Germans is a bit like saying Hitler was leader of the Poles and Danes.

[Kuciwalker]

They can't include Hitler or Hirohito for legal reasons.

What?

[Locutus]

All Japanese emperors are very much a touchy subject in Japan and a no-go area for Firaxis.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Locutus
That is one interpretation. As you said, the nationalities were very much in flux at that time, you're imposing modern concepts on medieval people.

Dark Age People. Although I do agree since almost all current European cultures started around 1000 AD. Before that they would nearly unreconizable.

Also, I don't think Hirohito and Akihito would be a touchy subject since the Imperial Family gave up its divinity.

[monkspider]

Was that the reasoning for Meiji's rather conspicuous absence in BTS? I can understand Hirohito being a sensitive figure for Japan, but I am fairly certain Meiji would not have been controversial.

[Solver]

Akihito would probably be a problem because he's a living leader. I can see why they wouldn't want to include living leaders. And while the divinity has been officially given up, many people still consider Emperors to be divine or are, at least, touchy about the subject. So Hirohito would be problematic, too.

[Aro]

Originally posted by monkspider

....the freaking Cristo Redenator.......

Redentor. Cristo Redentor.



It's not freaking, it's just... Different.

[Guynemer]

It's a fine choice for a wonder, although the power is lame given how late in the game it appears.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Locutus

That is one interpretation. As you said, the nationalities were very much in flux at that time, you're imposing modern concepts on medieval people.

Yes, absolutely, so that in the context of conversation with non-history major/buff people (yourself not included in that category ) my point will be more easily understood.

There are camps on both sides. who want to have Charlemagne as either a French or a German leader. The truth is he was neither as far as we modern folk understand them to be, he was a Late Dark Age/Early Medieval Frank. The Franks, though neither conventional French nor German, were nonetheless major ancestors both ethnically and culturally, of both groups. Hence the middle-ground HRE civ.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by monkspider
Was that the reasoning for Meiji's rather conspicuous absence in BTS? I can understand Hirohito being a sensitive figure for Japan, but I am fairly certain Meiji would not have been controversial.

It's illegal to depict Emperor Meiji's likeness in Japan. Hence, he is not included in BtS.

(Makes note to include Meiji in the mod wishlist.)

[Locutus]

Originally posted by monkspider
Was that the reasoning for Meiji's rather conspicuous absence in BTS? I can understand Hirohito being a sensitive figure for Japan, but I am fairly certain Meiji would not have been controversial.

I don't know if that's the case but it's entirely possible. I'm not familiar with the details of Japanese law but lawyers tend to be extremely conservative about this stuff: technically using Hitler in a game isn't forbidden in Germany or Austria, but it's definitely subject to government scrutiny and very few game developers are willing to take any chances in that regard. I imagine the situation with Japanese emperors (and quite possibly Thai kings, if they'd ever consider adding Thailand) is the same.

[Jon Shafer]

That's correct... while it would be very nice to include, say, Meiji (a tidbit of Civ lore: he was actually in the original list of leaders for Civ 4 way-back-when) depicting any Japanese emperors, whatever the era is a very sensitive issue - which makes finding good leaders more difficult.