The Holy Roman Empire? Seriously?!

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by
Kuciwalker
Because he works with Firaxis.

Originally posted by Alexander I
Yes, I thought that was the whole point we've been trying to make.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And he wasn't getting it

Originally posted by Alexander I


Well, obviously.

Hey now boys, hold on, how tf am I supposed to relate "scenario and tutorial" designer in Civ 4 vanilla to the decision process about the HRE for the new xp? I think you're going ahead of the info you've offered me (my psychic powers are sadly limited to an unused part of me brain )

If he was involved in that - he opposes it and thinks its silly as far as I can tell - he would have said. Why don't you let him speak for himself.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by lockstep
Thanks again, and can you also tell what additional steps are needed to rename Charlemagne to Otto the Great?

The format of the Assets/XML/Text folder is subject to a lot of changes, but search the files in that folder for TXT_KEY_LEADER_CHARLEMAGNE.

Originally posted by Niall Becc
How do you know that? Possibly if they'd added Charlemagne to the French they wouldn't have created De Gaulle, and they'd have had "more leaderhead time". In reality, it seems more likely to me to have been about tasking: 10 new civs, 6 new other leaders ... go do it. Hence, Israel, Poland, the Mapuche, Malays, the Uighurs, or whoever, lost their place to a duplicate Germany.

The distribution of BtS's leaders over history is pretty even: 3 per era (only the Ancient era has 4 but that's by far the longest), which I highly doubt is a coincidence. So if they had removed De Gaulle they would have had to come up with another modern leader to replace him, which likely would've ended up being someone like Wilhelmina, Ataturk, Haile Selassie, another US president... yet another leader for an existing civ. I think that had they been forced to add Charlemagne to an existing civ they would've chosen Germany, to avoid that problem.

Their limitation was 16 leaderheads, noone will have told them that should mean exactly 10 civs and 6 leaders, although that ratio is pretty sensible so it would always have been something close to that (more civs than leaders but still enough leaders to spice up the existing civs). Poland and Israel didn't lose to a second Germany, they lost to the entire set of 16 leaders combined, which together forms a pretty good package representing all of human history from Bronze Age to WWII and from every continent.

Originally posted by Niall Becc
Hey now boys, hold on, how tf am I supposed to relate "scenario and tutorial" designer in Civ 4 vanilla to the decision process about the HRE for the new xp? I think you're going ahead of the info you've offered me (my psychic powers are sadly limited to an unused part of me brain )

If he was involved in that - he opposes it and thinks its silly as far as I can tell - he would have said. Why don't you let him speak for himself.

I may be credited as scenario designer (and tester: in both vanilla and the XPs I'm also listed under the header of 'Frankenstein group', or whatever title they chose to use) but I've done a lot more for Civ4 and its XPs. Most tangibly I added a lot of what I call the 'historic texture': I contributed many of the Great People names, named the religion buildings (Cathedrals & Shrines) and most of the UBs, contributed some of the city lists, some of the wonders are my idea, etc.

By saying I didn't know at the time that I contributed so heavily to the BtS civ/leader choices I mean that I provided a list of candidates, but I was far from the only one. However, most of the leaders that made it into the XP were from my list (I believe 12 of the 16) and the ones that weren't (like Charlemagne and Lincoln) weren't from anyone else's list either; Firaxis came up with those themselves, presumably mostly to fill the gaps in time periods (none of the modern leaders were my suggestions, as I've noted I'm not a fan of the modern era).

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Locutus

The distribution of BtS's leaders over history is pretty even: 3 per era (only the Ancient era has 4 but that's by far the longest), which I highly doubt is a coincidence. So if they had removed De Gaulle they would have had to come up with another modern leader to replace him, which likely would've ended up being someone like Wilhelmina, Ataturk, Haile Selassie, another US president... yet another leader for an existing civ. I think that had they been forced to add Charlemagne to an existing civ they would've chosen Germany, to avoid that problem.

Their limitation was 16 leaderheads, noone will have told them that should mean exactly 10 civs and 6 leaders, although that ratio is pretty sensible so it would always have been something close to that (more civs than leaders but still enough leaders to spice up the existing civs). Poland and Israel didn't lose to a second Germany, they lost to the entire set of 16 leaders combined, which together forms a pretty good package representing all of human history from Bronze Age to WWII and from every continent.

Well, that's interesting. I'll keep it in mind.

Originally posted by Locutus

I may be credited as scenario designer (and tester: in both vanilla and the XPs I'm also listed under the header of 'Frankenstein group', or whatever title they chose to use) but I've done a lot more for Civ4 and its XPs. Most tangibly I added a lot of what I call the 'historic texture': I contributed many of the Great People names, named the religion buildings (Cathedrals & Shrines) and most of the UBs, contributed some of the city lists, some of the wonders are my idea, etc.

By saying I didn't know at the time that I contributed so heavily to the BtS civ/leader choices I mean that I provided a list of candidates, but I was far from the only one. However, most of the leaders that made it into the XP were from my list (I believe 12 of the 16) and the ones that weren't (like Charlemagne and Lincoln) weren't from anyone else's list either; Firaxis came up with those themselves, presumably mostly to fill the gaps in time periods (none of the modern leaders were my suggestions, as I've noted I'm not a fan of the modern era).

That role would kinda be the fantasy role of myself and most other historian, civ fans. Cool job! May I congratulate you as well. I also know the person to ask in future about these things, which is good.

Which wonders were your ideas btw (that is if you can say)?

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Niall Becc
That role would kinda be the fantasy role of myself and most other historian, civ fans. Cool job! May I congratulate you as well. I also know the person to ask in future about these things, which is good.

It's not any kind of official position, other testers are more than encouraged to contribute (and Firaxis and testers like me read these forums closely as well), but they keep using the suggestions I make, which is definitely very cool

Which wonders were your ideas btw (that is if you can say)?

That's quite the can of worms: there's a bit of a story behind the wonder list and it's not my place to disclose that. But one wonder that was my suggestion that I'm pretty proud of getting into the game is the Sankore University. I can't give you a full list (not that it's *that* big) but the BtS wonders of Shwedagon Paya and Cristo Redentor were proposed by me as well.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Locutus But one wonder that was my suggestion that I'm pretty proud of getting into the game is the Sankore University.

Impressive! You'll be prouder I guess if in 50 years time Civ XIV still has it. That'll be interesting.

[LDiCesare]

From http://www.2kgames.com/civ4/beyondthesword/ :

Otto I managed to reunite the empire

Since when did Otto reunite all the French Carolingian territories in his empire?

[Cyrus The Mike]

ok man, first off. The HRE wasn't german, it was turkish, Israile, and Egyption. Germany was rulled by the Goths and later the huns. who eventually lost everything. Dumb Mongolians. anyway, otherwise I agree with you, it is dumb to add the HRE when we allready have the Romans, Turks, and Egyptions. and what would their UU be? Pret. That are purple?

[Kuciwalker]

wtf?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Cyrus The Mike
ok man, first off. The HRE wasn't german, it was turkish, Israile, and Egyption. Germany was rulled by the Goths and later the huns. who eventually lost everything. Dumb Mongolians. anyway, otherwise I agree with you, it is dumb to add the HRE when we allready have the Romans, Turks, and Egyptions. and what would their UU be? Pret. That are purple?

Joke post, right?

[Harovan]

It has to be.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Niall Becc


If you think the HRE existed in 800, then there's little I can do to help you. He was made "Emperor"; the Holy Roman Empire was a later name for the Kingdom of Germany, after wardship of the Western Empire fossilized with the German kings.

And if you think the HRE wasn't Germany, then go tell that to the scores of chroniclers and other writers from the middle ages who routinely call it that, or to the guy who later came up with the title "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation".

I claim ignorance of when the Holy Roman Empire actually began (I was simply going by earlier posts) and I could be wrong about Charlemagne being a Holy Roman Emperor (again going by earlier posts and swore I saw something on the History channel too), but no, you can't help me as far as thinking that the HRE is not Germany. I've read too many posts here and read too much about history on my own to believe that anymore then I believe that Rome is just Italy or the Ottoman Empire is just Turkey.

[Shrapnel12]

I got this from Wikipedia. Make of it what you will:

The Holy Roman Emperor was the elected monarch ruling over the Holy Roman Empire, a Central European state in existence during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period. By convention the first Emperor was taken to be the Frankish king Charlemagne, crowned as Emperor of the West by Pope Leo III on 25 December 800, although the Empire itself (as well as the style Holy Roman Emperor) did not come into use until some time later. Holy Roman Emperors were crowned by the Popes up until the 16th century, and the last Emperor, Francis II, abdicated in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars that saw the Empire's final dissolution.

This seems to back up what I said earlier. However I also got this from the same page:

After Charlemagne's death in 814, his realm was eventually divided into three by his grandsons at the Treaty of Verdun of 843. The Western realm would later become France, the Middle realm Lotharingia or Lorraine, and the Eastern realm Germany. The title of Emperor was held by several Carolingian Frankish monarchs until the ascencion of Otto I of the Eastern realm, in 962. From this time onward, Eastern Francia became the Holy Roman Empire, and its rulers, after being elected as king of Germany, would be crowned as emperor by the Pope. The last emperor to be crowned by the pope was Charles V; all emperors after him were technically emperors-elect, but were universally referred to as Emperor.

This backs up what others have said. I see this as a "tomato/tamato" arguement. There are several confusing parts. How could Charlemagne be Holy Roman Emperor if it didn't start until 962? How could Charles V, a spanish king be a king of Germany?

Lastly, I present this link which is a map of the HRE according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holyromanempire.png

I conclude this from my findings: The Germany is to the HRE what Russia is to the USSR. These modern day countries could be said to be the heart of the national entities that they were once part of.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
How could Charlemagne be Holy Roman Emperor if it didn't start until 962? How could Charles V, a spanish king be a king of Germany?

Welcome to fiat by Papal decree. Nobody said it had to make sense.

I conclude this from my findings: The Germany is to the HRE what Russia is to the USSR. These modern day countries could be said to be the heart of the national entities that they were once part of.

That's probably a good way of looking at it. However, using that logic, we should have a USSR with Stalin as leader (instead of him being leader of Russia).

Wodan

[Cyclotron]

How could Charlemagne be Holy Roman Emperor if it didn't start until 962?

There is a difference between the Holy Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Emperor. Having one does not require having the other. Charlemagne was King of the Franks and Lombards; "Holy Roman Emperor" was merely a personal title.

Likewise, the Holy Roman Empire spent much of its history without an Emperor, since an Emperor could only be crowned by the Pope. The leader would be "King of the Romans," with the Emperor title only following in certain times and circumstances (i.e., if the Pope decided to grant it).

Thus, it was entirely possible to have the HRE(mperor) without the HRE(mpire) and vice versa. Even if this civ was a good idea to include (I propose that it was not), Charlemagne is not an appropriate leader, as he did indeed predate the Holy Roman Empire. His coronation as Emperor did not summon the HRE into being. That would take the efforts of the latter German kings (Otto and his successors, primarily). The HRE's ideal leaders would probably be Otto the Great and Frederick Barbarossa, not Charlemagne.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Likewise, the Holy Roman Empire spent much of its history without an Emperor, since an Emperor could only be crowned by the Pope. The leader would be "King of the Romans," with the Emperor title only following in certain times and circumstances (i.e., if the Pope decided to grant it).

Even "King of the Germans" or "King of Germany." That's a bit of a shock to people who insist there was no Germany prior to 1871.