Lonecat Nekophrodite
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 1,861
I confess that I used to be a great believer in the Enlightenment Era. There was a Mod that added that Era to Civ V that I played to Death years ago, but I have changed my opinion - somewhat. I still believe the Enlightenment Era was a real, and really important. development and period in which massive technological, political, and philosophical changes took place, but there is a Massive Problem with it as a universal game mechanic: most of the world never went through it.
Explanation required:
Everybody got the technological changes, but I submit that they were independent of any Enlightenment. The development of flintlocks started in the early 17th century, the development of trunnioned mobile field artillery in the late 15th century, the development of the steam engine in the late 17th century, and as mentioned, the 'factory system' was already in use (primitively) before the Enlightenment started.
The most important part of the Enlightenment was the philosophy of Humanism, which became virtually a new religion, and the concept of the Sovereign People - the idea that the people not only deserved to be listened to by the government and those governing, but that the government was subordinate to the people' desires - or else the people had a sovereign 'right' to Remove the Governors. Cue king's heads falling into baskets and a band playing "The World Turned Upside Down" - and eventually, "Meadowlands March" (I'll let you look up the significance of that one yourself).
Unfortunately for the idea of the Enlightenment as a Standard Progression in the game, most of Asia, South America, Africa, and Middle East, and parts of Eastern Europe, came to these ideas late or not at all: so those parts of the world to this day have more than their share of totalitarian, authoritarian, 'top-down' models of politics and economics - they adopt the 'democracy' or capitalist economics because they have no choice, but dictators, kings, or any other authoritarian can always find excuses to stay in power and thugs to help them stay there. Oliver Cromwell nailed it when someone asked what he would do if 9 out of 10 men turned against his Rule:
"I'll put a sword in the hands of the 10th man."
But in England, he was replaced by Parliamentary Democracy with Parliament firmly in charge over the king within a generation, and Great Britain never went back to authoritarianism or 'divine right' monarchs.
Cromwell's Rule, unfortunately, still applies in much of the world.
The second objection I have to an Enlightenment Era is more general: Eras are all Eurocentric and Artificial and I detest them as a game mechanic, as useful (but grossly Simplistic) as they have proved to be for Civ. The new historical 4x game Humankind seems to be adopting the Era Model wholesale, so I suppose it has now become a historical 4X Meme, but I don't have to agree with it or support it.
Rather than an Era, I'd rather show the Enlightenment as a Civic that allows or prompts you to develop Sovereign Democracies - parliamentary or republican - and possibly the kind of laissez-faire Capitalist economies associated with them (but not 100%, as witness the Socialist Democracies prevalent in most of Europe's enlightened states today, or the semi-socialist New Deal and Great Society policies in the USA). And that Civic or set of Civics should be on a side track so that no one has to go that way but the alternative leads inexorably to an economy that is less efficient at Wealth Production - the scourge of 'top-down' managed economies of all kinds versus Rampant Capitalism, at least until the mass gets sick of being exploited by the capitalists and Cues the Revolution - again. Note that the politics of that revolution can be either 'Right' or 'Left' - Nazi/Fascist to Socialist/Communist - but they are all Authoritarian and Dictatorial in the end.
So this explains why Firaxis is right about The Enlightenment not being an era on its own right? I'm not sure if Siam ever developed their own Enlightenment? I'd say 1932 Revolution was the closest thing but it never progressed beyond Republicanization, while it created Constitutional Monarchy (One single constitution that remained in use for 15 years until the Reactionary movements (Which shaped Mass Monarchy aspects of the Ninth Reign, pretty much a kind of Bourbon Restorations here that its effects lingers even today though the influences on people's mindset did fade as of now), for many Southeast Asian colonized countries, The Enlightenment (not sure if I could called it such) came along with either Marxism or Fascism (With the influences of Japanese Empire and Chinese Guomindang regime (国民党) ) or even some elements of South African Apartheid was imported to Malaysia.
Onto navy, Did Firaxis got it right about cannon mounted warships since Iberian Caravels (Previous Civ games also included Galleon, it disappears however since Civ5 onwards) that it serves as melee ships and Frigate being bombardment ships (and no Ships of the Line which were much more superior, nor square rigging unlocked two-mast light ships with square rigging and frigate style hulls) I don't think Caravels were still around by the beginning of The Enlightenment, they were pretty much sold to civilian merchants or colonists (AFAIK The Mayflower and other ships that carried The Pilgrims to what's now New England were Caravels I think, small hull and not many guns). Should Caravel exists in the late medieval rather than early renaissance? should there be light assault ships unlocked with Square Rigging tech (serving as Anti-piracy ships or something between Caravel and Ironclad assault ship)?
Not even close. The steamboat is a good example of the old Engineering Maxim:
"When it's time to railroad, everybody is going to railroad."
So, in the case of applying steam power to boats, it started all the way back in 1704, with a Frenchman (Denis Papin) mounting a primitive steam piston engine on a paddle-powered boat. Totally impractical, because the Newcomen-type steam engines were so grossly inefficient.
The first named known steamboat was the Pyroscaphe, built in 1783 by the Marquis de Jouffrey in France, who even 18 years after Watt's efficient steam engine couldn't get his hands on one, so used a Newcomen clunker of an engine, but his boat made several trips up and down the Saone River before The Revolution forced de Jouffrey to abandon the boat and run for his life.
5 years later, in 1788 John Fitch of Philadelphia built a boat that carried passengers and freight up and down the Delaware River using a Watt engine and paddlewheel power. Simultaneously, William Symington in Scotland developed a paddlewheel steamboat and his second 'prototype' went into service in 1803 as the Charlotte Dundas, the world's first commercially successful steam-powered vessel, carrying passengers and freight back and forth across Scottish canals (Fitch's boat lost money because of too much competition from wagon and coach traffic on good roads paralleling the river)
It was 1807 before Fulton, using a slightly modified version of Symington's Dundas with an improved Watt-type engine, started service with his North River Steamboat on the Hudson River (later the boat was renamed Clermont) - so Fulton, despite American Chauvinism, was about 4th or 5th in line for 'first steamboat'.
More importantly (in Game Terms) in that same year (1807) Robert Steven's Phoenix was the first steamboat to travel on the open (coastal) Ocean (New Jersey to Philadelphia) and in 1819 SS Savannah was the first ship with a steam engine to cross an ocean (Atlantic). Caveat: the Savannah was also full-rigged with sails and used them for most of the way, and was converted back into a simple sailing ship a few years later.
For us Gamers, the important dates are:
1830 - world's first passenger and freight-carrying railroad
1838 - first steamships cross the Atlantic under steam power completely.
1839 - screw propeller-driven steamships, start of practical steam-powered ocean shipping of all kinds
1840 - first explosive shell-firing breechloading cannon: the Paixhans elongated shell effectively made all wooden warships suicidally obsolete.
1841 - Dreyse Needlegun adopted by the Prussian Army - the first practical breechloading rifle in general service
1843 - Both England and the USA launch their first screw-propeller driven steam warships
1854 - Britain, USA and France all simultaneously start building warships protected by wrought-iron 'armor' - the first Ironclads (But note, the Steam Frigate predates them by 10 years, and the first Ironclads are Coastal only)
In other words, in less than 25 years we need to be able to add:
Railroads, Steam Shipping (massive increase in Profitability from sea trade routes), Rifle-armed Infantry and Cavalry, Rifled Artillery, Steam Frigates, and Ironclads.
The military historians talk about the Military Revolution of the 17th century (general adoption of gunpowder weapons in Europe) and the Revolution of 'Maneuver Warfare' in 1936 - 1945, but I put it to you, nothing changed so many aspects of warfare and the economy supporting the armies and navies so fast and so drastically as the application of Industrial Steam Power between 1830 and 1855 CE.
Which, of course, is almost entirely absent from Civ VI!
And, my apologies to All for rambling on at such length: this is NOT supposed to be some kind of Industrial History Forum!
1. So Savannah was the first 'Steam and sail' ships? and what's the last of this kind and its fate, had it been converted into all steam once superior engines became available?
2. And what is the first ironclad warships being dubbed 'Battleships' and who built it? is it designed to be successor to Ships of the Line?
3. Should (Dreadnough) Battleships be a successor to Frigate? or should there be a new class of warships which made Frigates a light ranged and Ships of the Line being heavyweight and badass but slow (strong ranged attack with melee defenses) and Frigates should be upgraded to Cruisers and Battlecruisers and the linear ended with Missile Cruisers instead?