The Holy Roman Empire? Seriously?!

[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]

Re: The Holy Roman Empire? Seriously?!

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.