Dawn of Civilization General Discussion
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
I'm playing as USA in 1700 AD start and couldn't help but question some of the starting civics, there's a great deal countries claim to be and then there's that which they really are. Really the first Civic should be Republic, the U.S. has never been a direct democracy, it is definitely is more republican in nature the popular vote doesn't elect the president, slavery should also be a starting civic left till the 1860s if playing accurately given the nationwide slavery compromises. Colonialism should be enabled as well given that Territories were colonies, conquered land, essentially.
TheCleanerDragon
Squad Leader
If you want to change America's starting civics, go to RFC Dawn of Civilization\Assets\python\Civilizations.py. Use ctr+f to find iAmerica and change iDemocracy to iRepublic, and iIndividualism to iSlavery.
No kiddin, I just wanted to be historically accurate
no it's not. sorry the world doesn't work like in your little American civics lessonsNo I think it's just an accurate analysis
Then tell me where I am wrong, I'm giving you the most unbiased view
"democracy means direct direct democracy and republic means checks and balances" no. Most generally democracy means "rule by the people" with no further qualification on how that rule is implemented. Republic just means that there isn't a monarch.
Back in the 18th century people saw democracy as inherently unstable and impractical because of monarchist propaganda but also because there hadn't really been a real democratic government beyond city states (kind of how we look at anarchism today). So a bunch of founding fathers decided to rebrand the whole thing for their colonial government they were trying to come up with. The slogan was "we are totally not a democracy (which is bad). We are a.... Republic!! (which is totally different from a democracy because checks and balances and stuff. we all read John Locke)". With this term they were harkening back to the Roman republic which definitely wasn't destroyed by a bunch of power hungry rich people, a fact that has no relevance to the current political situation of 2022.
Because this was just a PR move, these definitions aren't really taken seriously by political scientists (other than to discuss the thinking and writings of these specific historical figures), and no other country on the planet thinks of them that way. Checks and balances, separation of powers, independent judiciary, civil rights etc etc really aren't anything special in the world anymore, so insisting on these parochial 250 year old distinctions doesn't make sense. Now why do American school children still get told about it? Because your history classes unfortunately are primarily about American myth making. The idea that America is a Republic which makes it Special is an integral part of the myth of American exceptionalism.
Now in the game I am not really using the terms in the way I defined them above either. I use Republic for ancient forms of democratic government, including the Roman republic and the Greek polis, as well as medieval republican governments. Democracy is the term to describe modern day democratic governments of various forms that descend from either the model of the American republic and the French republic.
Terminology is difficult! The most important lesson to take away from all this is that the meaning of a term is dependant on context.
Back in the 18th century people saw democracy as inherently unstable and impractical because of monarchist propaganda but also because there hadn't really been a real democratic government beyond city states (kind of how we look at anarchism today). So a bunch of founding fathers decided to rebrand the whole thing for their colonial government they were trying to come up with. The slogan was "we are totally not a democracy (which is bad). We are a.... Republic!! (which is totally different from a democracy because checks and balances and stuff. we all read John Locke)". With this term they were harkening back to the Roman republic which definitely wasn't destroyed by a bunch of power hungry rich people, a fact that has no relevance to the current political situation of 2022.
Because this was just a PR move, these definitions aren't really taken seriously by political scientists (other than to discuss the thinking and writings of these specific historical figures), and no other country on the planet thinks of them that way. Checks and balances, separation of powers, independent judiciary, civil rights etc etc really aren't anything special in the world anymore, so insisting on these parochial 250 year old distinctions doesn't make sense. Now why do American school children still get told about it? Because your history classes unfortunately are primarily about American myth making. The idea that America is a Republic which makes it Special is an integral part of the myth of American exceptionalism.
Now in the game I am not really using the terms in the way I defined them above either. I use Republic for ancient forms of democratic government, including the Roman republic and the Greek polis, as well as medieval republican governments. Democracy is the term to describe modern day democratic governments of various forms that descend from either the model of the American republic and the French republic.
Terminology is difficult! The most important lesson to take away from all this is that the meaning of a term is dependant on context.
BigSchwartzzz
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2019
- Messages
- 99
"So a bunch of founding fathers decided to rebrand the whole thing for their colonial government they were trying to come up with. The slogan was "we are totally not a democracy (which is bad). We are a.... Republic!!"
Nice little fantasy Leoreth. When you're not coding for the mod are you crafting the next ASOIF saga set in the late enlightenment era? That'd be cool. I'd certainly read it. It'd especially be entertaining if at least the first three installments is comprised of nothing more than 600 pages each of the narrator seething about the dreadful American Colonists or the newly formed American "Democracy" from the safety of his constantly war torn continent.
Though I do always start with slavery on my American starts anyway to capture European workers for a massive boost. But it really doesn't matter since in the mod you can change your civics the first two turns without anarchy and a few turns of anarchy later on are worth it.
Nice little fantasy Leoreth. When you're not coding for the mod are you crafting the next ASOIF saga set in the late enlightenment era? That'd be cool. I'd certainly read it. It'd especially be entertaining if at least the first three installments is comprised of nothing more than 600 pages each of the narrator seething about the dreadful American Colonists or the newly formed American "Democracy" from the safety of his constantly war torn continent.
Though I do always start with slavery on my American starts anyway to capture European workers for a massive boost. But it really doesn't matter since in the mod you can change your civics the first two turns without anarchy and a few turns of anarchy later on are worth it.
In the modern period the USA, the USSR, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Ireland, and the Democratic Republic of Congo all claim to be republics because they are not monarchies. I'm not sure why folks are making a big fuss over the matter.
It might make the government names more unwieldy but despotism, monarchy, and elective could more accurately be named despotic monarchy, divine monarchy, and elective monarchy to clearly show the differences between 1-man rule (monarchy) vs the alternatives.
It might make the government names more unwieldy but despotism, monarchy, and elective could more accurately be named despotic monarchy, divine monarchy, and elective monarchy to clearly show the differences between 1-man rule (monarchy) vs the alternatives.
BigSchwartzzz
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2019
- Messages
- 99
Leoreth's take on America. It's like clockwork
Last edited:
A fair analysis but relevant my other two points I think they're fair critiques I.e. slavery & colonialism
Lmao I think Leoreth misunderstood me I'm not defending the U.S. I simply wanted to be more precise on the Civics given the history
BigSchwartzzz
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2019
- Messages
- 99
No my friend, Leoreth didn't misunderstand you. He saw an opportunity to take a dump on America and took it, that magnificent b*stard. 
The original American settlers were a bunch of religious zealots obsessed with individualism (puritans who left England after the civil war) and enterprising capitalists (plantation owners in the american south). I think running individualism & free enterprise while buying slaves from other nations is historical for the USA.
If anything the idea of the early USA being tolerant towards non-protestant religions is ahistorical. But since the early USA did not have a state church or a theocracy, religious tolerance is probably the best historical fit.
Starting with colonialism implies that your nation encourages colonizing far away places overseas. The USA only started sailing around the world to colonize oversea territories after 1900 or so. Isolationism or nationhood is the most accurate civic for post-colonial nations who focus on their own development (hence why they seceded from their colonial overlords). If north america was populated with independent or native cities, the USA should start with conquest (manifest destiny). This probably won't happen until the new (large) map is implemented.
Yeah basically. Keeping the names wieldy is an important concern here.
I understood you perfectly well. The issue is that you apply an anachronistic and insufficiently universal set of definitions to the problem.
