Civ 3 VS. History

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Richard III
There is actually a great deal of historical revision about the "joy manifestations" at the beginning of WWI

Hmmm ... what about the enormous number of people which almost block the Kaiser Wilhelm II car demandig him to "teach the Serbs a lesson !" ??

I don't want to sound like a cultist

Sorry - I don't know what means the term "cultist" ...

between war-related unemployment and voluntary enlistment

Hmmm ... in many cases war means massive investments in industry => more jobs.

Germany and Russia both had their war effort suffer for it, even when Germany was doing relatively well in 1918.

Economically both countries was almost collapsed ...

Frequently wars ended because nobles and merchants rebelled because they got sick of paying for it.

But sometimes the investors get more profits from war economy and support it ... Both faces of medal are true !

scris de Parmenion
No really, what is the difference between a Democracy and a Republic as defined by the dictionary (I'm gonna search the web for this in a sec), and how does this differ from game terms?

Democracy - a political form of governement in which most decission is taken by people - directly or using a representative system. Ancient Grecee was a true democracy at this aspect.

Republic - A system in which the power is distributed beetwen the people and many "natural aristocracy" using a "check and balance" way. There are two form of republic : aristocratical and popular - it depens on which part have the right of "VETO"

Ancient Rome was an example of aristocratical republic - the Senate debate, take decissions but the Tribuns ( representant of poor people - the plebs ) had the rigth to block any law !! The Tribuns cannot ( if my informations are correct ) propose a new law.

U.S. is, IMHO, mainly a popular Republic because - for e.g., the people may propose a law but the Supreme Court may block it - using the unconstitutional argument.

Personally I'm adept of a popular republican system because this may avoid the danger of "tyrany of majority" - which is a main problem of a democratical system of repartition of power.

A good exemple of difference : juridical system.
In ancient Greece there wasn't a juridical corp or even a written code of laws !! Representants of people take the decissions by vote - first if guilty, after this the punishment !

The juridical corp are, by definitions, a republican institution - ideally they are man which dedicated their life to study principles of law, so they form a "natural aristocracy".

Unfortunatelly in common language the way to organise the power and decisions mechanism - which may be democratical and republican - are confused with the purpouse of a system - which are to defending the fundamental rights and freedom of persons, communities and so on. And this purpose are called "democracy" even if, technically speaking, this is totally inncorrect.

Regards,

P.S. : Excuse my bad english ...

 

[Shabbaman]

I think meritocracy is the right word here (derived from merites, which means something like 'if you lick my **** I'll let you vote)

 

[napoleon526]

Originally posted by Willem


The ancient Greeks weren't as democratic as many people think they were, only a very select few were allowed to vote on issues. Mainly male citizens, either landowners or fairly wealthy merchants etc.

This is true, but you have to bear in mind how revolutionary the concept of representative government was back then. The greek democracies were a big improvement over the old "Do what I say or I'll kill you" forms of government. [phaser]

 

[Civman10]

Greek democracy was never a true democracy. Only Greek citizens could vote in the assembly. Greek citizens were male property owners and this excluded migrants, women, slaves and normally ‘plebes’. This number was only about 40,000 and many historians believe the actual figure was only 6,000. Pericles was the master of Greek politics and ‘so in what nominally a democracy, power really in the hands of the first citizen’.
Pericles used the idea of democracy to create a power base for his own purpose. He set up the democracy to use the power of the ‘plebes’ to concrete this own power.

‘Pericles, because of his position, his intelligence, and his known integrity, could respect the liberty of the people and at the same time hold them in check. It was he who led them, rather than they who led him, and, since he never sought power for any wrong motive, he was under no necessity of flattering them: in fact he was so highly respected that he was able to speak angrily to them and to contradict them…. So in what was nominally a democracy, power was really in the hands of the first citizen.’ Thucydides.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
Hmmm ... in many cases war means massive investments in industry => more jobs.

Economically both countries was almost collapsed ...

But sometimes the investors get more profits from war economy and support it ... Both faces of medal are true !

I don't mean to be argumentative, but right there you've got an apparent contradiction - on the one hand, the war was supposed to have helped the economy, and on the other, collapsed it?

The First World War did help one economy - the American. But in others, the two initial effects that drove up unemployment were (a) a sagging of capital markets, and
(b) more importantly, interruptions in trade.

There are a lot of people - me among them - who would argue that the 1914 economy was more globalized and interconnected than today's - in part because local economies had not specialized enough to meet consumer demand.

I think (b) is important in the context of civ, because, as I'd said, it makes an ok historical parallel to say "war has interrupted trade" in, say, dyes, and so the economic loss of that luxury simulates the discontent you'd get from that lost trading partner.

And I'm not sure it's fair to say that there were that many winners from the Hundred Years War and its cousins - the soldiers tended to "forage" for food rather than buy it. The only real winners in those days, when wartime tended to mean lost agricultural production instead of gained industrial production, would be the bankers, who loaned bucketloads of money to the likes of Henry V to pay for it all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

And by the way - Timisoara!

Haven't head that city's name in a while. In fact, not since my birthday in 1989. How are things in Romania? I lost track about two elections ago. Hope it's going well, and welcome to the forum. And don't worry about your english, it's better than many of the native speakers on this forum . "Cultist" could be said to mean "worshipper," - in other words, I was trying to say that just because I quote Niall Ferguson (who is a rising star in history at Oxford) doesn't mean I worship the guy or anything.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Civman10
Greek democracy was never a true democracy. Only Greek citizens could vote in the assembly. Greek citizens were male property owners and this excluded migrants, women, slaves and normally ‘plebes’.

Not true. The "standards" of those times was differents.

Migrants - not in our times migrants doesn't have the right to vote.

Women - until the begining of previous century this situation occured in many other countries. In fact not only the right to vote, but many other civil rights was denied to women until Napoleonian Civil Code.

Slaves - in those times with little work productivity existance of slavery was almost a necessity. Cynical, but true ...

Plebs - are you sure about this ? In my knowledge Athena had implemented a system of randomly choose people to manage public buissness - especially to allow the poor people to obtain them !!

Pericles used the idea of democracy to create a power base for his own purpose. He set up the democracy to use the power of the ‘plebes’ to concrete this own power.

This is probably the impact of a charismatic leader in a democratical system ...

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Park Ranger
I find it helps to think of corruption as occuring in two forms: high-level and low-level. High-level is when corruption occurs among high level gov't, public, and business leaders. This occurs, to varying degrees, worldwide, no matter what the gov't.

Excellent post !!

I 99% agree with you ...

scris de Richard III
I don't mean to be argumentative, but right there you've got an apparent contradiction - on the one hand, the war was supposed to have helped the economy, and on the other, collapsed it?

He he ...
That's because in real life doesn't exist ( that extremly rarely ) black and white ....

There are different types of wars :
- a "total war" like WWI, WWII or Napoleonian Wars may impose high cost to almost all citizens. But - interesting ! - this kind of war is possible to have a larger popular support !!
- limited wars, when a (super)power send some troops, military advisors and weapons may be a profitable buissness !! But - this kind or war is ussually unpopular because for many people seems completelly usseless ( and in many cases really are .... ) !!

But in others, the two initial effects that drove up unemployment were (a) a sagging of capital markets, and
(b) more importantly, interruptions in trade.

Despite this facts ( which seems to be valid, even in those time capital markets wasn't so intimately interconnected ... ) I recently read a interesting argue which said that the main economical cost of WWI was paid ... during crisis of 1929-1933, which is presented in many aspects as a consequence of WWI and following peace !! That's because the enormous investments in war industry during the war was stopped and the "peace economy" couldn't assure in right time a such level of employment and capital profit ....

I don't know ... maybe is just a speculation at all.

There are a lot of people - me among them - who would argue that the 1914 economy was more globalized and interconnected than today's - in part because local economies had not specialized enough to meet consumer demand.

This is a really interesting point of view !!
May you give me some related links ?

In fact, not since my birthday in 1989. How are things in Romania?

Your birthday is probably in december ...
Things in Romania ? Bad. Economically worse that in Ceausescu regime .
That's a prove that a misguided transition in a hostile international economical "globalistic" enviroment is worse than a communist system in a bi-polar world ... Sad, but true.

Regards,

Mîtiu Ioan Angelo

Programmer, Timisoara, Romania

 

[napoleon526]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan


Plebs - are you sure about this ? In my knowledge Athena had implemented a system of randomly choose people to manage public buissness - especially to allow the poor people to obtain them !!

Right on!

Plebians were the lower class in Rome, not Greece. As long as you were a free male, you could vote in Athens.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
Despite this facts ( which seems to be valid, even in those time capital markets wasn't so intimately interconnected ... ) I recently read a interesting argue which said that the main economical cost of WWI was paid ... during crisis of 1929-1933, which is presented in many aspects as a consequence of WWI and following peace !! That's because the enormous investments in war industry during the war was stopped and the "peace economy" couldn't assure in right time a such level of employment and capital profit ....

Your birthday is probably in december ...
Things in Romania ? Bad. Economically worse that in Ceausescu regime .
That's a prove that a misguided transition in a hostile international economical "globalistic" enviroment is worse than a communist system in a bi-polar world ... Sad, but true.

I'd love to get into the 1929-1933 issue, but that would take pages. I would argue that Europe paid some of the costs during the war in lost consumption and deferred production, but paid much more in lost capital and wasted credit in the following decade. But let me hunt around for links on the "Edwardian Globalization" issue for you; although unfortunately, I've mostly seen the argument made in print, not online. It was a common theory in the press in the early globalization debates about 3-4 years ago.

Birthday is December 20th. If I remember correctly, the fighting started on the 18th, but nobody took it seriously until the 20th. I woke up that morning, - a memorable day, since it was my 19th, b-day which made me a legal drinker in British Columbia - to watch the world go crazy at several local pubs. First, there was live coverage of the invasion of Panama and - if memory serves, I may have the events off by a day or two - there were reports that paratroops were being moved to Timisoara to quell what the Romanian govt. regarded as "isolated protests."

And I'm a hardcore free trader myself, but only a fool believes that making the transition from one system to the next should be done carelessly or rapidly, and yet that's how it was done! I have a friend who visited Moscow before the fall and then a decade later, and he said "things were bad before, but it's a different kind of bad now. Before, you knew what the trouble was, but now you have no idea what kind of trouble is around the corner." I think he meant it figuratively as well as literally.

R.III

 

[Gerad]

Yes this is something that has bothered me slightly democracy should not be a choice as a government. The US government is called a democracy but as said before it is really a republic there has never been a real democracy before that would mean all people particpate (who want to) and have a voice in the way the country is governed. In america`s case that is untrue people have a parital voice in what happens, america is certainly though not ruled by the people not competely anyway or things would be very different here.

I personally think that would be pretty diffcult to accomplish.
They need to change the name of the government from democracy to modern republic.

Oh yeah wouldn`t communism fall under despotism or monarchy I think the governments are sort of vague under monachy there are many different types of monarchies and many different types of despots. I think communism would fall under despotism since they make government choices so vague communism is really despotism. if they have communism they should have fascisim and other types of governments

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Mû‘iu Ioan


War wearinnes is historically innacurate ...
Nobody here didn't see the endless "joy manifestations" when WW I was declared ? Enormous number of vollontiers ???
Sometime people living in a democracy or a republic is easy to sustain a war that another form of governement !!

I agree. The people of the USA overwhelmingly approved of Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. I think war weariness should be dependent on how many of your units get killed, and also whether your country was attacked. England's people (government: democracy) in WW2 were with the war effort all the way because they were being attacked. I think "war weariness" needs some fine tuning in CIV3.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Gerad

They need to change the name of the government from democracy to modern republic.

CIV3EDIT lets you rename "democracy." What are you waiting for?

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
Migrants - not in our times migrants doesn't have the right to vote.

They do in local matters over here (the Netherlands), and they did already with the Iroquois who had the first democracy by modern standards.

Women - until the begining of previous century this situation occured in many other countries. In fact not only the right to vote, but many other civil rights was denied to women until Napoleonian Civil Code.

Again, with the Iroquois women had rights (not the same as the man, but equal. The women nominated and the men voted. All could partake in the debate.) You could say it took us a while to catch up.

 

[napoleon526]

Originally posted by sumthinelse


I agree. The people of the USA overwhelmingly approved of Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. I think war weariness should be dependent on how many of your units get killed, and also whether your country was attacked. England's people (government: democracy) in WW2 were with the war effort all the way because they were being attacked. I think "war weariness" needs some fine tuning in CIV3.

This makes sense, and history supports the idea. In the beginning of WWI, every belligerent country was overwhelmed with volunteers for the army, and the few who did not approve of the war were shunned. Several years later, after millions of troops had died thanks to inflexible generalship and technological advancements, support for the war dramatically decreased on both sides.

However, you could also make the arguement that citizens of a democracy or republic would have less of a problem with war weariness, since they are fighting to protect their freedom. Subjects of a monarch would be less likely to care if their govt fell, because they would just be replacing one autocrat with another. But members of a democratic governments have historically made great sacrifices to save their liberty.

During Xerxes invasion of Greece, the Athenians were so dedicated to preserving their democratic way of life, they evacuated their entire city's population, and were prepared to use their navy to take them to southern Italy to start a new city rather than live under a Persian king. Fortunately for western civilization, they decided to stay and fight, acheiving a great naval victory at the battle of Salamis. In WWII, Londoneers (Londonites, Londinians?) endured horrific nightly bombings during the blitz but never lost their determination to survive.

(Sniff) I'd better stop before I start to lose it...

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Keep it tied to Civ please. This one's starting to wander a bit...

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Again, with the Iroquois women had rights (not the same as the man, but equal. The women nominated and the men voted. All could partake in the debate.) You could say it took us a while to catch up.

You're right - and the same is valid ( as a example ) for contest-based system for occupy public functions like sometime in ancient ( or medieval ) China - this was a main demand of French Revolution in 1789 !!

Unfortunatelly - like geographical or technical discoveries - social ones was many time forggoten or minimalised ... sometimes the context may explain this, sometimes just pure human stupidities and/or vanity !!

Regards,

 

[Zoke0]

I've created a monster!!!

I don't care I've learned some, actually alot, so this isn't to bad!

 

[Zoke0]

"Keep it tied to Civ please. This one's starting to wander a bit"
By, Cunobelin of Hippo

I think your right it is starting to wander, it may be a good time to change the subject!

 

[Zouave]

Keeping to Civ, even with Universal Suffrage Democracies who are attacked suffer far too much War Weariness. Indeed, that needs to be fixed. I don't recall it being like that in Civ II.