Wiz, for the love of all that is good and holy, fix this please
- Thread starter Darkath
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I was being ironic, do you prefer Allemans or Germans ? And it's not a special treatement, it's just a mistake forgotten.
Just rename all the cultures in the continent to European. Or hell go beyond and name all cultures something like earthlings or terrans.
- 1
1) Please. Being honest, you would cite the conclusion of this article. Not one sentence from the first part of an entire article.
2) Do you think France could be ignored on the political stage in that time?
3) What are your chronological conditions for being a superpower? Does it implies having nukes? Because your article speaks of the British Empire...
Who do you pretend to speak for?
I think every people involved in this intersting discussion are smart and polite enough to apologize by themselves if asked for or feel they have to.
Do you pretend to be some kind of moral judge on the subject? Let's begin with the definition you think would be the more appropriate for the new term you want to be used here.
Not that much stupid. However, you may feel totally French and not being a Parisian.
I don't know where you're from (I miss these former localisations on the forum), so I'll take a known example.
Being from San Diego, you may feel Californian when compared to the rest of USA, or you may feel American when compared to the rest of the world. But for one reason or another, being considered an Angeleno would just seem weird.
And the trouble with this Cosmopolitaine culture is that being a Californian you would be called an Actor, or a Moviemaker.
Last edited:
- 1
How much attention did China have to pay to France? Oh right, none. Do you see what I mean?
That it does, the 1800s sparked a change in the way the world was organized. Ever Heard of concepts like the Concert or Europe? These things refer to shifts in how the word organised itself, for example, there used to be a point in time where nations were not well defined, where you had city-states and things like that, but the global power structure evolved and changed overtime. For a Superpower to exist I would have to assume that centralised or unified nations exist and that the world had at least somewhat fully had contact.
And the conclusion of the article says nothing for your defence friend. I highly suggest studying International Relations and its history.
China was essentially a hyperpower, but it couldn't or wouldn't project power very far during much of its existence. Aside from Rome at its height and/or the Mongol Empire there wasn't anything on par with it until the British and Spanish Empires. It's irrelevant to whether or not France was basically god-mode in Europe, which it was. It wasn't because of cultural superiority. They just had bad luck with domestic order and that helped forge them into something distinct from their german brethren to the east. The friction between the french kings of England and the french kings of France made them both into what we recognize today. The weakness of the english throne led to the magna carta and parliament, and the strength of french agriculture -> cavalry led to the most centralized european state and some intimidating projections of French might within Europe.
The french region was ridiculously populous compared to most other european areas during this period. Until the 19th century France was almost certainly the most populous european region when it was surpassed by Germany (which plays into the Franco-Prussian War). The Hundred Years War was a civil war between multiple sides of the Kingdom of France. The King of England of the time was descended of a French Duke that owned Anjou and Aquitaine and pressed a claim on England. It's like the Margrave of Brandenburg and King in Prussia situation. The guy was just one of many french dukes, but suddenly he's also the King of England. Shit -> Fan. Yet England was ruled from France by the Plantagenets more often than not, and treated more as a possession of French Lords rather than a realm in its own right. That would continue until a welshman won a civil war for the throne of England and the last pieces of France were reclaimed by France.
The fact that there was an epic 100 year period of war over who was the true King of France only lends credibility to how powerful France was. Many players sat on the throne of France, and yet that perilous throne was always the goal. There was no objective where they just split the realm up between other realms. France was above other realms. The idea was always "No, this whole thing is actually mine, I'm the rightful ruler of all of it." And France was overtaking Latin as the common language of the aristocracy of Europe as far away as Moscow during this period too. At the height of their domestic unrest they were increasing in international influence.
Agincourt is a bunch of BS btw. Archaeologists have looked at the area and they believe the english and french were very evenly matched at the battle. It was just an english fish story about how outnumbered they were and still won.
The french region was ridiculously populous compared to most other european areas during this period. Until the 19th century France was almost certainly the most populous european region when it was surpassed by Germany (which plays into the Franco-Prussian War). The Hundred Years War was a civil war between multiple sides of the Kingdom of France. The King of England of the time was descended of a French Duke that owned Anjou and Aquitaine and pressed a claim on England. It's like the Margrave of Brandenburg and King in Prussia situation. The guy was just one of many french dukes, but suddenly he's also the King of England. Shit -> Fan. Yet England was ruled from France by the Plantagenets more often than not, and treated more as a possession of French Lords rather than a realm in its own right. That would continue until a welshman won a civil war for the throne of England and the last pieces of France were reclaimed by France.
The fact that there was an epic 100 year period of war over who was the true King of France only lends credibility to how powerful France was. Many players sat on the throne of France, and yet that perilous throne was always the goal. There was no objective where they just split the realm up between other realms. France was above other realms. The idea was always "No, this whole thing is actually mine, I'm the rightful ruler of all of it." And France was overtaking Latin as the common language of the aristocracy of Europe as far away as Moscow during this period too. At the height of their domestic unrest they were increasing in international influence.
Agincourt is a bunch of BS btw. Archaeologists have looked at the area and they believe the english and french were very evenly matched at the battle. It was just an english fish story about how outnumbered they were and still won.
- 1
Yes. I'm from Chicago, so our local culture would be "Corruptpoliticianan". But I see what you're saying. Though I think that what you're saying is Parisian is a better option than Cosmopolatine which was the idea.
Me too. American to Cheeseburger. Scottish to Haggis. German ones to Sauerkraut, Franketfurter, etc...
Okay, I think I'm beginning to see where the confusion originated from.
It seems superpower is a false friend for French superpuissance -- this is the case for some other words, like Modern Era, different from the période moderne in French (1453/1492-1789/1815), which is followed by contemporay era (post 1789/1815). That's also the case for globalization distinct from both mondialisation and globalisation in French, or again with nation in English, that covers the words nation (''people who want to live together, under the same government, in the same country''), pays (''country'') and peuple (''people'') in French.
So, I fear that pursuing this interesting discussion will need a clear distinction between ''great powers'' and ''superpowers'' in English.
Basically, in French, grandes puissances (''great powers'') means ''some countries you have to count with'', when superpuissance (''superpowers'') are those who do nearly what they want.
So, there's no reference to knowing the whole world for being a superpower. That was the case for Incas, the Persian or the Roman Empire, for example. I even foudn a French Wikipedia page where Sweden is called a superpower for 17th century. This may please some devs, I guess, but this seems a bit exagerated and it would be better defined as a great power, I think.
In English, it may only refer to countries able to enforce their views on the whole world. Right?
By the way, I found this interesting list:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-modern_great_powers
France is noted quite a lot of times...
Last edited:
Not exactly the right era boundaries. 769 - 1444/53 is Medieval. Renaissance is the transitional period into 1444/53 - 1815, Early Modern. 1815 - 1945 is Modern, the Atomic Bomb 1945 - 2001/present is postmodern.
And just to clarify, Early - 450 is Classical and 450 - 769 is the Dark Ages (though you could argue to 962 for the HRE)
Last edited:
I spoke about historical eras in French:
pre-476: Antiquité (≈ Antiquity)
476-1453/
1453/1496-1789/1815: Période moderne (meaning ''Modern Era'', but closer to English Modern Era)
post-1789/1815: Période contemporaine (meaning ''Contemporary Era'', but closer to Modern Era, or maybe Late Modern Era, if this exists).
Guys. Don't start this game. Never speak about food with us French guys.
Or you'll have to define a very lot of French cultures: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_fromages_français
Last edited:
- 1
This is a good description, but I never heard "1496" being defined as a such special date of beginning of an era, I would say that 1492 is a lot more important.
I've also seen a distinction between Renaissance (ends at Louis XIV's reign) and Période moderne (from Louis XIV's reign to 1815). Obviously that's a French-centric bound though, while Louis XIV's personal rule was very relevant to French history it did not change that much on the world stage.
Those names are beyond stupid, by the way. Time always moves, and calling somethin "modern era" while expecting the name to stick means that we're now stuck calling "modern" a period that ended 200 years ago. Add calling "contemporary" the Restauration and Juillet monarchy... Especially since an argument could be made that the world entered a new era in 1945, or 1989, or 2001, so now what should we be calling this one? "Super-contemporary era"? Ugh...
You can't just redefine words to make yourself right. I Am using the definition accepted by most scholars and political scientists, including those in France!