Wiz, for the love of all that is good and holy, fix this please

[Gaamel]

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.

France had 30 million inhabitants around 1800, and somehow only 40 million in 1914, and 65 million today. This tells how the country was already very much populated. Compare that to Britain : around 10 million in 1800, 30-40 million in 1914! This (lack of) demographic boom explains why France lost much of its status compared to its neighbours in the 19th Century, especially the British Empire and Germany.

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.

I suppose all medieval historians since the 15th Century have all been wrong then. What a shame, isn't it? (I'm curious to know to what study you are referring)

 

[Elfryc]

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!

Oh please, ChrisFox, I humbly beg you. May you bring to my weak brains the light of your great knowledge?

 

[ChrisFox]

Oh please, ChrisFox, I humbly beg you. May you bring to my weak brains the light of your great knowledge?

My knowledge? Oh no no no, This is OUR knowledge, you know, reality. I'm not poking fun at you or calling you stupid. I'm just saying you can't assign an arbitrary definition to a word to make yourself right. Just because you believe a word means a certain thing doesn't mean it means that thing.
I will not say that France wasn't powerful, but to say they were a superpower back then is just plain wrong.

 

[InFerroVeritas]

Guys. You've gotten way, way off topic. And this conversation is a bit too vitriolic.

 

[EU3NOOB]

Except neither the Kingdom of France, the French Republic or the Kingdom of the French accepted any other culture than Oil French.

*Americaball enters the room*

Did someone say those Frenchies have oil?!

Gotta bring those Frenchies some Freedom(tm)...

It also seems to me that the Anglo-Swedish alliance is working well.

Good job, Wiz!

 

[Third Angel]

Well we have 11 agree on the OP against 1 disagree as of yet.

Not only that, but cosmopolitaine cannot refer to any culture in any language, be it in English and certainly not in French, and I am French and Parisian.

 

[atwix]

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.

This gave me the forum laugh of the day.

Spot on. Enough said.

I'll send you a save, where france colonised california.

Cosmopolitaine California, so to speak.

Whoever implemented the word cosmopolitaine (or cosmopolitan) as a CULTURE NAME for french region, was ignorant or slipping mockery into the code.

 

[tompalmer]

From a history point of view, I'd put the french culture where the king had effective power (Ile de France/Paris and Normandie).
Other territories would have a local culture (like occitan).

But the cosmopolitan thing is quite baffling to me, it's a word mostly used by the Vichy Regime (you know Petain etc...) to criticize Jews and intellectuals in the 1940's.

So I don't understand the idea and even less the obstination. In France it could be considered as an outrage.
My two cents ...

 

[tompalmer]

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...

It's academics, nothing more. Landmarks

 

[Zehir]

http://screenshooter.net/102228486/vihklfy

But did you see that?

 

[Darkath]

Praise the sun !

Whatever F-word that is, our prayers have been answered

 

[stevieji]

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.

Hmmm ... not having that, I'm afraid. What archaeologists? What evidence do you seriously imagine they might have found almost 600 years after the event? Records of English manpower still exist - roster by name, no less - and given estimates for attrition of one sort or another, plus garrison left at Harfleur, it seems quite clear that the English force at Agincourt was an absolute maximum of 8,500. The French force - according to French sources, not English propaganda, seems to have been in the region 36,000. Sources quote figures ranging from about 24,000 to 50,000.

 

[Dorevai]

The wikipedia page for it throws some cold water on those numbers. Remember literacy was in short supply back then. History often went to fantastic stories rather than the truth. I know I saw a report from some digs in the area, but I can't find it.

No one disagrees the english were outmanned by the french, but some of the histories actually report 30 to 1 odds, some report 4 to 1, etc., yet a few of our modern day critics, experts in the various accounts, put the odds at 1.5 to 1.

Obviously there is no way the french brought 30x what the english did and still lost, yet that's recorded somewhere too.

 

[stevieji]

The wikipedia page for it throws some cold water on those numbers. Remember literacy was in short supply back then. History often went to fantastic stories rather than the truth. I know I saw a report from some digs in the area, but I can't find it.

No one disagrees the english were outmanned by the french, but some of the histories actually report 30 to 1 odds, some report 4 to 1, etc., yet a few of our modern day critics, experts in the various accounts, put the odds at 1.5 to 1.

Obviously there is no way the french brought 30x what the english did and still lost, yet that's recorded somewhere too.

The number I'm suggesting - 36,000 - gives a force ratio in excess of 4:1, which seems entirely reasonable if you look at the detail available regarding the French order of battle - and by any standards can be considered overwhelming superiority. I certainly wouldn't give any credence to figures over 50,000 for the French army - this does seem fanciful by the standards of the day and I would disregard it entirely if it was a figure given by the English - probably includes various camp followers.

Maybe I'm a little biased - we know that the French force was divided into three lines and that the first of these was 12,000 strong - perhaps the 2nd and 3rd lines were not as strong as the 1st, so perhaps we're looking at a figure like 12+8+8=28,000 - it's impossible to know for sure, but I think it's inconceivable the French fielded less than 24,000 fighting men. I also think it's quite probable that the 3rd rank of the French force never got anywhere near the English lines - due to the nature of the battlefield and the general carnage.

I have never seen anyone, 'expert' or otherwise, who gives the French a mere 1.5:1 advantage - or anyone who suggests the French fielded the 250,000 men which a 30:1 ratio would suggest. I think we can probably agree that these kinds of extremes can be safely disregarded.

Let me just remind you of your statement, which provoked this disagreement ... "Agincourt is a bunch of BS btw. Archaeologists ... believe the english and french were very evenly matched ..." Care to revise that assessment? We take this stuff seriously over here - particularly in the year of the 600th anniversary. I'll give you a hint - what I'm looking for is something more along the lines of "Agincourt was undoubtedly one of the greatest military victories of all time ... which the English won against almost impossible odds."

 

[MiniaAr]

But isn't this kind of redundant? Does anybody have heard of an English victory not won against overwhelming odds?

 

[IsadorBG]

Anyway given how Italian cultures got split it's probable that Cosmopolitaine will get the same treatment and get cut in Oil subcultures.

 

[Darkath]

Anyway given how Italian cultures got split it's probable that Cosmopolitaine will get the same treatment and get cut in Oil subcultures.

Oil was already split betwen Cosmonauts, Burgundians, and Normans. I've already told here about how burgundian culture at the time was very much integrated with the rest of the middle french.

But except Cosmonauts being renamed as Fr-something and Occitain renamed to Occitan (Praise the sun !) the cultural setup doesn't seem to have changed much, and the province still seems large as hell.

Vendée is part of Poitou ? Please.

 

[IsadorBG]

Oil was already split betwen Cosmonauts, Burgundians, and Normans. I've already told here about how burgundian culture at the time was very much integrated with the rest of the middle french.

But except Cosmonauts being renamed as Fr-something and Occitain renamed to Occitan (Praise the sun !) the cultural setup doesn't seem to have changed much, and the province still seems large as hell.

Vendée is part of Poitou ? Please.

I meant that Cosmopolitaine get cuts in sub-cultures like Angevins, Picards, Champenois, Franciens for exemple... .Not that there wasn't other Oil subcultures already in game.

Southern France didn't change but I have not seen pictures of Northern France.

 

[Darkath]

I meant that Cosmopolitaine get cuts in sub-cultures like Angevins, Picards, Champenois, Franciens for exemple... .Not that there wasn't other Oil subcultures already in game.

Southern France didn't change but I have not seen pictures of Northern France.

Such subcultures would have no sense, or each french province would have its own subcultures (because provinces are so larges). The cultural differences between angevin and franciens weren't that strong to warrant a different culture in game. It was mostly minor vocabulary changes or pronunciations differences but it was the same languages at core.

 

[IsadorBG]

Such subcultures would have no sense, or each french province would have its own subcultures (because provinces are so larges). The cultural differences between angevin and franciens weren't that strong to warrant a different culture in game. It was mostly minor vocabulary changes or pronunciations differences but it was the same languages at core.

I think the same can be said about Germanic or Italian sub-culture.

Especially with the new culture setup. And you still make the same confusion between culture and language.