I was thinking it would add historical flavour (especially for Rome, Greece and Carthage) and would stop hereditary government's monopoly on half the game. Not sure why this wasn't done in the first place. Would it unbalance things in some way?

Hehe, since I like to roleplay my civilizations, I usually end up neglecting HR until I've researched representation, but i would rather have it as an added option rather then substituting or switching place with HR (because AFAIK it was used way before representation was).

Say, something like majority rule or a direct democracy as in Athens which would suffer from penalties (commercial maybe) depending on city size and quantity, but which would lead to added happiness bonuses and maybe even productivity.

Ah, well I got around this problem by creating a whole new civic called 'Oligarchy'. When you look at it, the governments of Rome, Carthage & Athens were clearly quasi-representative, but were very much limited to the wealthy land-owners (Patricians in Rome). What set them apart from monarchies, though, was that they were rule by a group-rather than rule by a single person. I also added a Dictatorship civic, which represents government by a single person-usually appointed by a group. When I get my s**t together, I will be releasing my Expanded Civics mod for BtS. Feel free to check out the Warlords version though to see whether my Oligarchy civic fits your ideas of Classical Government types :).

Aussie_Lurker.

I actually always though of Representation as an Oligarchy/Elite Democracy. If not, what differentiates it from Universal Suffrage?

I guess thats another big change I made to my civics-I called Representation 'Republic'. However, the key difference between Representation & Oligarchy-in my mind at any rate-is that in the Latter you have some kind of voting system. i.e., wheras the Senate systems of Rome & Carthage were Hereditary, the early Republics of the 18th & 19th Century required that you had to be elected-even if the voting pool was incredibly small (no women, no slaves, no young people etc etc). Wheras Universal Sufferage opens up the vote to ALL the people of that Country above the age of either 16 or 18.
Hope that explains my thinking :).

Aussie_Lurker.

That's interesting, I had always assumed that the classical senates were elected (with a very restricted or weighted electorate of course)

That's interesting, I had always assumed that the classical senates were elected (with a very restricted or weighted electorate of course)

They were, but it wasn't just the voters who were restricted. The candidates themselves came from an even smaller circle. No person not of the senatores was eligible to be elected to the senate.

The senatores were an official social class, a title, like the equites, that belonged to entire families. The title was somewhat heritable but periodically reviewed by the Censors. It was a very, very small class, existing at the absolute apex of the social classes, above even the equites. For a family to be registered as senatores, they first had to show they were eligible by virtue of being nobili, and then had to show they had at least 1 million sesterces. If they didn't meet either of these qualifications, they weren't eligible to attain or retain the title, and could not run for a seat.

So, basically, we're not really talking about any sort of election in terms we would think of it, even among a select/restricted group of voters. More like elections of the sort held in the USSR, where you could only vote for members of the communist party, but an even smaller group than that. Essentially it would be like if the top classes of society chose from among a very small group of aristocrats which particular faces to put on government. The dual set of qualifications knocked practically everyone out of the game. Nobili without enough sesterces weren't eligible; nor would you be eligible by virtue of having 10 or 20 million sesterces if you weren't hereditary nobili.

That is pretty much how I understood it too, frekk. There were "elections" of a sort, but the only people who could stand for office were the family members of previous office holders-all of whom were part of the aristocracy. This was largely the same group as those who could vote-making it a very insular system.
As I understand it, Greek "democracy" worked along similar lines, where only the aristocratic & mercantile classes could vote on the various issues put forward.
Don't get me wrong, though, for the period of history we are talking about, these forms of government were EXTREMELY enlightened, & far better than all the various monarchies that preceded or followed them.

Aussie_Lurker.

senate (senātus), the legislative council of Rome, in origin the council of the kings which survived the abolition of the monarchy in 510 BC. The number of members first attested is 300, increased by Sulla to 600, by Julius Caesar to 900, and reduced by Augustus again to 600. It was at first a purely patrician body and it became in practice an assembly of ex-magistrates. Senators received no payment. Although a property qualification was not stipulated until the time of Augustus, senators were usually rich men from important families (see OPTIMATES, NOBILES, NOVUS HOMO), and membership of the senate tended to be hereditary. Owing to its functions and permanence the senate was the real head of the state. It prepared legislative proposals to be brought before the people, and its resolutions, called decreta or, more commonly, senatus consulta, had some measure of effective if not legal authority (they could be vetoed by the tribunes). It administered the finances, assigned magistrates to provinces, and dealt with foreign relations. It also supervised the practice of the state religion. Since it was a body of ex-magistrates, serious clashes were avoided between the imperium of the magistrates and the authority of the senate, and in general it exercised strong control over holders of office, tending to use them as its tools. The collapse of the republic came about when the authority of the senate was powerless against military leaders backed by their armies. Under the empire, although the senate lost its sovereign power, it was not without important functions, and Augustus endeavoured to share with it the administration of the state. But in fact, partly owing to its own inefficiency, its power gradually diminished.

This quote is from Oxford University Press. Hope it clarifies things.

Only adult male Athenians citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes – effectively eighteen years and over – had the right to vote in Athens. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, children, women and resident foreigners (metics). Also disallowed were citizens whose rights were under suspension (typically for failure to pay a debt to the city: see atimia); for some Athenians this amounted to permanent (and in fact inheritable) disqualification. Still, in contrast with oligarchical societies, there were no real property requirements limiting access. (The property classes of Solon's constitution remained on the books, but they were a dead letter). Given the exclusionary and ancestral conception of citizenship held by Greek city-states, a relatively large portion of the population took part in the government of Athens and of other radical democracies like it. At Athens some citizens were far more active than others, but the vast numbers required just for the system to work testify to a breadth of participation among those eligible that greatly exceeded any present day democracy.

Athenian citizens had to be legitimately descended from citizens—after the reforms of Pericles in 450 BC on both sides of the family, excluding the children of Athenian men and foreign women. Although the legislation was not retrospective, five years later the Athenians removed 5000 from the citizen registers when a free gift of grain arrived for all citizens from an Egyptian king. Citizenship could be granted by the assembly and was sometimes given to large groups (Plateans in 427 BC, Samians in 405 BC) but, by the 4th century, only to individuals and by a special vote with a quorum of 6000. This was generally done as a reward for some service to the state. In the course of a century the numbers involved were in the hundreds rather than thousands. This reflected the general conception of the polis as a community, somewhat like an extended family, rather than as a territorial state.

Here is a Wikipedia article outlining what it required to be a citizen able to vote in Greek Democracy. It is less Oligarchic than the Roman system, but still highly restricted-moreso than what I personally feel Representation is supposed to be.

Aussie_Lurker.