安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题






Charles II, based on the people that actually know about him beyond his deformations, was a righteous Christian man who was, either because his administrators were benevolent or he was able to understand justice, not a bad king and benefited Spain during his (or his regents') rule.
Charles II is not responsible for being deformed and, by all accounts, seemed to have overcome it enough to win the hearts and minds of the Spainards.
> [Charles II] was a good king, enacted several administrative reforms by his own, and he was called "one of the best kings of our times" by his contemporaneous. He was a pious person and when he died the Pope said that he was might to become a Blessed. Please, before slandering a person that suffered...
Okay, so while I agree that it's certainly mean-spirited to mock him, poking fun at him being so grossly deformed that his corpse did not bleed during his autopsy and his his IQ was room temperature is not an attack on his character .
Hmm, no drool...nevertheless, approved.
*Stamps seal*
Albeit, they had that distinct chin all the way back in 900 AD.