Economy and stability...

The problem are a lot of lies and twisted reality. Has anyone considered that the aforementioned empires stopped expanding BECAUSE they were collapsing and not the other way around ??? Or that it's just a coincidence or a side effect, etc , but not at all the main cause ?

Also I would like to inform you that the period of Pax Romana has been the best period for the Roman Empire, namely the Pax Romana started with Augustus and ended with Marcus Aurelius and the term Pax (peace) was referring to the Empire, so inside its borders (ie no civil wars, rebellions and uprisings), rather than outside its borders.

Well if we can't agree on the facts of the situation, then we can't possibly have a discussion, so we'll just have to disagree on both of those.

But if you won't accept those examples, how about this one: The British Empire. Tell me the British empire didn't disintegrate because of economic problems.
 
you said that the Roman Empire started declining during the Pax Romana. That's hardly a "fact", that's twisting reality.
 
Well if we can't agree on the facts of the situation, then we can't possibly have a discussion, so we'll just have to disagree on both of those.

But if you won't accept those examples, how about this one: The British Empire. Tell me the British empire didn't disintegrate because of economic problems.

The British empire didn't collapse because of economic trouble. In fact it never collapsed. The Bitish monarch is still the head-of-state of 52 countries; the British Commonwealth. The Bitish colonies gradually one by one declared their independence or fought for it. Most of the colonies received their independence after WWII when the days of colonialism finished. The Brits knew this and encouraged independence of some of their colonies i.e Australia. There are still some British colonies around today namely Falkland Islands. Gibralter etc. Up until 1995 Hong Kong was still a British Colony. The United Kingdom is also still around. As you can see the British Empire is still around.
 
The British empire didn't collapse because of economic trouble. In fact it never collapsed. The Bitish monarch is still the head-of-state of 52 countries; the British Commonwealth. The Bitish colonies gradually one by one declared their independence or fought for it. Most of the colonies received their independence after WWII when the days of colonialism finished. The Brits knew this and encouraged independence of some of their colonies i.e Australia. There are still some British colonies around today namely Falkland Islands. Gibralter etc. Up until 1995 Hong Kong was still a British Colony. The United Kingdom is also still around. As you can see the British Empire is still around.

Not only is Obliterate spot on, it should also be pointed out that liberating colonies has a game mechanic in BTS already and a reason for doing so. It certainly doesn't lead to the collapse of an entire country or civil war.
 
It may be A problem but not THE problem. Or are you saying that there is some historian out there that seriously claims that the Roman Empire fell due to a stagnation in expansion ? If so can you name them and link something ?

No historian is going to point to *only* the economy, however, i can quickly quote Wikipaedia: "Finally, an economic crisis later hit the empire, which arose from the lack of plunder of outlying territories and of slaves from Roman conquests."

Part of the problem is that history is great at recording symptoms, but not necessarily so great at identifying underlying causes. Most political turmoil is just that - symptom - and not a primary cause.

I'm confused, are you saying that Rome collapsed due to bad economy or not ??

I'm saying it was a contributing factor. I'm also indicting the Roman economy in general, because it was based on plunder. I guess my main point here is that the Roman economy was not exactly well developed in terms of infrastructure - something which could have helped stabilize the empire. Well-structured economies sometimes perform poorly (ie, the Great Depression), but governments or countries don't collapse because they do.

If you consider the rise of a Dictator that steals all money and rampant corruption an economic problem then yes. The real problem is the total poverty and ignorance of the common people though. Btw you passed from Country collapse to Government collapse. There's a huge difference there. In RFC it's the country that collapses, not the government. IE there was a country named XYZ here, and after the collapse there is no more. The only modern example that comes to my mind is the USSR, and from my understanding it was indeed an economic/stability collapse.

Except the core of the USSR is still with us - Russia did not "collapse". The USSR *was* Russia in any real sense. When the USSR "collapsed", Russia merely relinquished control of its conquered territories. The USSR -> Russia is really an example of governmental collapse, not country collapse. Now, many of the primary causes of this change were economic, I agree. (I also think you'll find few dissenters to any claims that the USSR/Russian economy had little infrastructure and was poorly developed - the USSR having destroyed much of the economic infrastructure that existed in Russia before its ascension).

In fact, post-Nationalism I can't think of a single country that has collapsed outside of the third world. (And those are all in Africa - who arguably haven't "researched" nationalism yet).

(Now, there have been civil wars - those usually involve 2 or more factions who control substantial territory. I'm sure RFC could model this, but it doesn't. Think of the US Civil War, in which the country split into two factions each controlling a substantial portion of the country. Even in Roman times, civil wars would occur because a general would gain control of the local legions and declare himself Augustus/Imperator/whatever - which usually amounted to a small part of the empire (such as Gaul or Egypt) as the base of that party against the rest of the empire.)

Edit: On historians espousing primarily economic reasons for a Roman collapse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire#Arnold_J._Toynbee_and_James_Burke
 
Except the core of the USSR is still with us - Russia did not "collapse". The USSR *was* Russia in any real sense. When the USSR "collapsed", Russia merely relinquished control of its conquered territories. The USSR -> Russia is really an example of governmental collapse, not country collapse. Now, many of the primary causes of this change were economic, I agree. (I also think you'll find few dissenters to any claims that the USSR/Russian economy had little infrastructure and was poorly developed - the USSR having destroyed much of the economic infrastructure that existed in Russia before its ascension).

No man, in RFC when a Civ collapses the cities are still there, but they are now indipendent civs, often indipendent even among themselves. Isn't this what happened (politically) to the USSR ? Maybe not exactly the same thing, but certainly as close as it can be.

In fact, post-Nationalism I can't think of a single country that has collapsed outside of the third world. (And those are all in Africa - who arguably haven't "researched" nationalism yet).

USSR ?

Edit: On historians espousing primarily economic reasons for a Roman collapse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire#Arnold_J._Toynbee_and_James_Burke

These are just silly theories (that's why they are listed on Wiki). Roman funds were based primarly on taxes, not on loot. It was one of the distinctive traits of the Romans to not just plunder everything they conquered. They certainly did loot, but I don't see how can they say that Romans were just looting resources rather than producing them. There are a lot of documents proving the contrary O_o
 
No man, in RFC when a Civ collapses the cities are still there, but they are now indipendent civs, often indipendent even among themselves. Isn't this what happened (politically) to the USSR ? Maybe not exactly the same thing, but certainly as close as it can be.

Russia is more than Moscow. Do I really need to say more?


Did not collapse into independent city-states. It relinquished its imperial holdings, just like Britain did. There was a shift in government structure, but we actually have continuance of government throughout the transition (its the same government metamorphosing over time). This is in no way like being reduced to one city.

Further, the USSR was basically a 3rd world country in terms of economy. (technically 2nd world, but that's only because it was communist rather than someone's puppet). In fact, some 3rd world countries had better economies than it did. Argentina post-WW2 springs to mind.

More importantly, you need to explain why Germany remained a country despite the devastating depression between the world wars. Why the US didn't collapse under the great depression. Etc... If you want to espouse a "economic instability leads to civ/country collapse" theory.

These are just silly theories (that's why they are listed on Wiki). Roman funds were based primarly on taxes, not on loot. It was one of the distinctive traits of the Romans to not just plunder everything they conquered. They certainly did loot, but I don't see how can they say that Romans were just looting resources rather than producing them. There are a lot of documents proving the contrary O_o

...

I'm more likely to put faith in published historians than someone who merely dismisses them with no evidence whatsoever. Especially when my knowledge of Roman economics jives with what the published people with PhDs are saying. Taxation is a form of looting if you're primarily taxing conquered people.
 
Of course the collapse of the Roman Empire is rooted in the Pax Romana! The most obvious thing is the fact that Rome really didn't fight all that much, and didn't maintain much of a proper standing army(of Romans, at least.) They relied increasingly upon foreign auxillaries: Gauls, Germans....etc. etc. When war returned, the once-vaunted Roman legions were poorly-trained and little better than levies, and all of those auxillaries proved to be of doubtful loyalty("Wait, why am I dying for some stupid city I've never been to that thinks I'm some sort of sub-human again?") That was one factor of many, but it unequivocally arose from the Pax Romana. Roughly the same can be said for the Han and the Pax Sinica...
 
Wait, are you sure you understand the meaning of Pax Romana ? >_<
Pax Romana is the peace brought by the Romans upon the peoples they conquered. It symbolizes the peace inside the Empire, it does not mean that the Empire was not at war with foreign peoples. It started when Rome came out of civil war, and it is probably the period of higher stability in its history, I would call it its Golden Age, and you call it its decline. Interesting...
 
Wait, are you sure you understand the meaning of Pax Romana ? >_<
Pax Romana is the peace brought by the Romans upon the peoples they conquered. It symbolizes the peace inside the Empire, it does not mean that the Empire was not at war with foreign peoples. It started when Rome came out of civil war, and it is probably the period of higher stability in its history, I would call it its Golden Age, and you call it its decline. Interesting...

What Lance and I are saying is not that the Roman empire declined during the Pax Romana, we're saying that the seeds of decline were planted during that time, it just took a long time for the rot to become apparent because of the previous strength of the roman empire; just as it took years for the Pyramids to crumble.

But no, the empire's problems did not begin in the fourth century.
 
The British empire didn't collapse because of economic trouble. In fact it never collapsed. The Bitish monarch is still the head-of-state of 52 countries; the British Commonwealth. The Bitish colonies gradually one by one declared their independence or fought for it. Most of the colonies received their independence after WWII when the days of colonialism finished. The Brits knew this and encouraged independence of some of their colonies i.e Australia. There are still some British colonies around today namely Falkland Islands. Gibralter etc. Up until 1995 Hong Kong was still a British Colony. The United Kingdom is also still around. As you can see the British Empire is still around.

You're not really suggesting that the Commonwealth of nations is the same thing as the British empire are you? Do Indian soldiers fight in British wars? Do Jamaican citizens pay British taxes? So what if the queen is head of state for 52 countries? The queen's status as British head of state is so precarious that she doesn't dare take a political stance on any issues at all. She's not a monarch, she's a tourist attraction. (Compare to King Faisal of Arabia who actually named the entire country after himself).

The stated goals of the commonwealth are entirely different from those of the empire. The empire was for the enrichment of Britain and served no other purpose. The commonwealth is, according to the Singapore declaration, committed to promoting ideas like democracy, human rights, and good governance.

The colonies recieved their independence after WWII, its true, but why do you think that is? British benevolence? Ever heard one of Churchill's speeches about India..or Egypt...or Ireland? The colonies got independence because Britain was too poor after the two wars to stop them. (aka, economic collapse.)

And to compare the remaining British specs of land to the empire on which the sun never set, that in it's prime controlled 1/4 of the world's population is just daft.
 
You're not really suggesting that the Commonwealth of nations is the same thing as the British empire are you? Do Indian soldiers fight in British wars? Do Jamaican citizens pay British taxes? So what if the queen is head of state for 52 countries? The queen's status as British head of state is so precarious that she doesn't dare take a political stance on any issues at all. She's not a monarch, she's a tourist attraction. (Compare to King Faisal of Arabia who actually named the entire country after himself).

The stated goals of the commonwealth are entirely different from those of the empire. The empire was for the enrichment of Britain and served no other purpose. The commonwealth is, according to the Singapore declaration, committed to promoting ideas like democracy, human rights, and good governance.

The colonies recieved their independence after WWII, its true, but why do you think that is? British benevolence? Ever heard one of Churchill's speeches about India..or Egypt...or Ireland? The colonies got independence because Britain was too poor after the two wars to stop them. (aka, economic collapse.)

And to compare the remaining British specs of land to the empire on which the sun never set, that in it's prime controlled 1/4 of the world's population is just daft.

The Commonwealth is an economic and political agreement. The British Empire didn't collapse it just lost some of its colonies.
 
The Commonwealth is an economic and political agreement. The British Empire didn't collapse it just lost some of its colonies.

I beg to differ. The British empire lost ALL of its colonies except for a few (at the time) worthless bits of rock. Anything and everything of value broke away.

And it lost them in the sense that one loses a fight. Not in the sense that one loses their keys.

But for the sake of diplomacy, I'll concede we may be arguing at cross purposes. For the purposes of this discussion, please elaborate on how you define collapse, and how the end of the British empire IRL is fundamentally different from what happens in the game (which is the basis for the discussion).
 
What Lance and I are saying is not that the Roman empire declined during the Pax Romana, we're saying that the seeds of decline were planted during that time, it just took a long time for the rot to become apparent because of the previous strength of the roman empire; just as it took years for the Pyramids to crumble.

But no, the empire's problems did not begin in the fourth century.

The empire's problems began way before Pax Romana, see at JC's assassination and the corruption of the Senate. That's exactly the real problem that killed the Roman Empire. What seed and root are you talking about, instead ?
 
Russia is more than Moscow. Do I really need to say more?
Did not collapse into independent city-states. It relinquished its imperial holdings, just like Britain did.

I know and I clearly wrote that it's not the same but it's as close at it can be, or do you think you can create a gazillion minor states when a civ collapses ? Geez it seems to me that you don't want to listen what others are saying.

I'm more likely to put faith in published historians than someone who merely dismisses them with no evidence whatsoever

You aren't putting your faith in any historian but just in yourself, in fact if you had read that wiki link, you'd find out that there are listed there loads of theories from historians and of them only one, supported by the large number of 2 historians, is the theory that the Roman Empire collapsed because it had nothing else to loot. Before YOU dismiss what I wrote with no evidence why don't you go about reading a bit. And I gave evidences btw, compared to the whole ancient history, Romans didn't really loot and plunder that much. How many cities have they razed compared to how many have they taken and even improved ? It's even one of the UHVs goal in RFC to make sure that cities of a certain dimension are at a good cultural and infrastructural level.
 
I beg to differ. The British empire lost ALL of its colonies except for a few (at the time) worthless bits of rock. Anything and everything of value broke away.

And it lost them in the sense that one loses a fight. Not in the sense that one loses their keys.

But for the sake of diplomacy, I'll concede we may be arguing at cross purposes. For the purposes of this discussion, please elaborate on how you define collapse, and how the end of the British empire IRL is fundamentally different from what happens in the game (which is the basis for the discussion).

The British Empire doesn't really exist today but it didn't collapse it just gradually lost its colonies. England and the UK remained strong economically and is still the 5th richest country in the world in terms of GDP.
 
The British Empire doesn't really exist today but it didn't collapse it just gradually lost its colonies. England and the UK remained strong economically and is still the 5th richest country in the world in terms of GDP.

It didn't remain strong economically though. It was referred to as the "sick man of Europe". It's economic growth was half of that in France and Germany. In the 70's Britain had to go to the IMF for a loan and labour unions pledged themselves to destroying democratically elected governments. In the 80's there was the legend of Ilsorpasso when the Italians thought their economy had outgrown Britain's. Britain only recovered very recently, during the last days of the last tory government.

But yes it didn't collapse as such, but then that sort of thing has never really happened.
 
I read on here that someone was having trouble because of the economy thing. For me, its been at 5 stars most of the game. Its the cities area that stays low. Its been at 2 for a long time now. It could have something to do with all the people I'm conquering. I guess I'll just have to deal with 1 star in expansion forever.:lol:
 
I know and I clearly wrote that it's not the same but it's as close at it can be, or do you think you can create a gazillion minor states when a civ collapses ? Geez it seems to me that you don't want to listen what others are saying.

Forgot which thread this was in...

Anyway, the "collapse" of the USSR is much better approximated in-game as Russia handing off imperial possessions to neighboring countries. (Ok, i can't support all these cities anymore, here, let me liberate your city).

This still also assumes the relevance of the USSR to the original claim, in which i stated no country with a well-developed economy collapses for economic reasons. The USSR arguably had a terribly developed economy, and thus despite being recent, isn't at all relevant to the claim.

You aren't putting your faith in any historian but just in yourself, in fact if you had read that wiki link, you'd find out that there are listed there loads of theories from historians and of them only one, supported by the large number of 2 historians, is the theory that the Roman Empire collapsed because it had nothing else to loot. Before YOU dismiss what I wrote with no evidence why don't you go about reading a bit. And I gave evidences btw, compared to the whole ancient history, Romans didn't really loot and plunder that much. How many cities have they razed compared to how many have they taken and even improved ? It's even one of the UHVs goal in RFC to make sure that cities of a certain dimension are at a good cultural and infrastructural level.

I did notice there are a number of theories there. Many of them are not mutually exclusive. A number of them are famous theories that are likely pointing to symptoms (effects) rather than root causes. Of course, determining root causes in history is hard, but we really could walk through all of them and think through the implications of the historian's arguments. However, nothing on that page contests the nature of the Roman economy as based on plunder - something which you are arguing isn't true. (This is where i'm more likely to take the word of a published historian.)

Razing cities is not the only way to plunder them. Unless of course you're going to consider the British expatriation of archeological material during the colonial period as something other than plundering - which strikes me as a ridiculous stance. (See, for instance, the case of the "Elgin" marbles). By a plunder economy said historians and I mean a system by which material wealth was confiscated by the victorious army and taken back to Rome. That the Romans did this is a matter of historical record - the treasures of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem were specifically hidden to avoid the Romans plundering them - their reputation proceeded them. (Not like this was all that different from other conquerors).

Razing a city is not something generally done on conquest unless you really have a grudge. The best documented example i can think of in the ancient period involves Alexander the Great. He didn't raze cities on conquest, but in one instance where a region rebelled against his rule and used guerilla tactics, he slaughtered every man, woman, and child in one of the cities as an example to the guerillas in the hills. (Ie, razed the city). The region stopped rebelling after two cities were destroyed in this way, as i recall, but i could look it up to confirm. (The real point here is that he didn't raze them on capturing them, though he almost certainly looted them, but instead occupied them).

Similarly, a plunder economy is really easy to understand in civ terms. Whenever you capture a city you get some gold. So long as you can continue to capture cities rapidly enough, you can deficit spend to support the cities you have. However, your economy quickly collapses if your conquests ever stop, because you possess far more cities than you can afford. While the real-life homolog involves a little more complication than this, its fundamentally identical.
 
Back
Top Bottom