EQ's Next NES Preview Thread

[Jason The King]

And it was just as wrong in that one.

The fact is at that time the non-Western world was not as "developed." Most of it was still based on historical tradition and had yet to experience an industrial revolution.

Whether you believe that tradition is equal in importance to industrialization is up to you to decide, but in terms of economic production and military fortitude, the non-western world did not stand a chance. I think thats what EQ is trying to portray in the rules.

 

[Karalysia]

The fact is at that time the non-Western world was not as "developed." Most of it was still based on historical tradition and had yet to experience an industrial revolution.

Whether you believe that tradition is equal in importance to industrialization is up to you to decide, but in terms of economic production and military fortitude, the non-western world did not stand a chance. I think thats what EQ is trying to portray in the rules.

And again this is false largely based on Western propaganda and the romanticized notion of the White Man's Burden and the inherent sense of European superiority which is wholly inaccurate.

Take for example that the Congreve rocket used by the British which inspired the American national anthem was a design copied from the Mysorean war rocket. And several Indian states including Mysore, Rajputana, the Sikhs, Hyderabad had set up manufactures and factories where they produced arms, weaponry, and other armaments, and they possessed mining industries. Central Asia is noted as well for its production of firearms and cannons. Up until at least 1860 the majority of the world's GDP as a % was found in China and India. It wasn't until well into the Second Industrial Revolution that European GDP as a % of the world's began to surpass Asia and much of that was due to the destruction of native industry. India for instance had a textile industry that was destroyed on the demand of the Manchester mills because they feared competition from it, what happened through much of Asia is a process that can be better described as dindustrialization.

Check this source:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w10586

India's De-Industrialization Under British Rule: New Ideas, New Evidence

David Clingingsmith, Jeffrey G. Williamson

NBER Working Paper No. 10586
Issued in June 2004
NBER Program(s): DAE ITI

India was a major player in the world export market for textiles in the early 18th century, but by the middle of the 19th century it had lost all of its export market and much of its domestic market. Other local industries also suffered some decline, and India underwent secular de-industrialization as a consequence. While India produced about 25 percent of world industrial output in 1750, this figure fell to only 2 percent by 1900. We use an open, specific-factor model to organize our thinking about the relative role played by domestic and foreign forces in India's de-industrialization. The construction of new relative price evidence is central to our analysis. We document trends in the ratio of export to import prices (the external terms of trade) from 1800 to 1913, and that of tradable to non-tradable goods and own-wages in the tradable sectors going back to 1765. With this new relative price evidence in hand, we ask how much of the de-industrialization was due to local supply-side influences (such as the demise of the Mughal empire) and how much to world price shocks (such as world market integration and rapid productivity advance in European manufacturing), both of which had to deal with an offset the huge net transfer from India to Britain before 1815. Whether the Indian de-industrialization shocks and responses were big or small is then assessed by comparisons with other parts of the periphery.

India's per capita GDP decreased from $550 in 1700 to $520 by 1857

During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment in bullion, to being an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[22] More specifically, in the 1750s, mostly fine cotton and silk was exported from India to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa; by the second quarter of the 19th century, raw materials, which chiefly consisted of raw cotton, opium, and indigo, accounted for most of India's exports.

"It was stated in evidence (in 1813) that the cotton and silk goods of India, up to this period, could be sold for a profit in the British market at a price from 50 to 60 per cent. lower than those fabricated in England. It consequently became necessary to protect the latter by duties of 70 or 80 per cent. on their value, or by positive prohibition. Had this not been the case, had not such prohibitory duties and decrees existed, the mills of Paisley and of Manchester would have been stopped in their outset, and could hardly have been again set in motion, even by the powers of steam. They were created by the sacrifice of the Indian manufactures. Had India been independent, she would have retaliated; would have imposed preventive duties upon British goods, and would thus have preserved her own productive industry from annihilation. This act of self-defence was not permitted her; she was at the mercy of the stranger. British goods were forced upon her without paying any duty; and the foreign manufacturer employed the arm of political injustice to keep down and ultimately strangle a competitor with whom he could not contend on equal terms."
—Horace Hayman Wilson[21]

The British East India Company made its first contacts in the Sindhi port city of Thatta, which according to a report was: "a city as large as London containing 50,000 houses which were made of stone and mortar with large verandahs some three or four stories high the...the city has 3000 looms...the textiles of Sind were the flower of the whole produce of the East, the international commerce of Sind gave it a place among that of Nations, Thatta has 400 schools and 4,000 Dhows at its docks, the city is guarded by well armed Sepoys..."

On another note I found a accurate map for India for this period 1700-1792, note how it says domains of Zemun Shah, so this should be fairly accurate for 1795 for the most part:

 

[spryllino]

And again this is false largely based on Western propaganda and the romanticized notion of the White Man's Burden and the inherent sense of European superiority which is wholly inaccurate.

Take for example that the Congreve rocket used by the British which inspired the American national anthem was a design copied from the Mysorean war rocket. And several Indian states including Mysore, Rajputana, the Sikhs, Hyderabad had set up manufactures and factories where they produced arms, weaponry, and other armaments, and they possessed mining industries. Central Asia is noted as well for its production of firearms and cannons. Up until at least 1860 the majority of the world's GDP as a % was found in China and India. It wasn't until well into the Second Industrial Revolution that European GDP as a % of the world's began to surpass Asia and much of that was due to the destruction of native industry. India for instance had a textile industry that was destroyed on the demand of the Manchester mills because they feared competition from it, what happened through much of Asia is a process that can be better described as dindustrialization.

The existence of an underindustrialised textile industry and a few gunpowder weapons that were largely inferior (given that Congreve rockets were not actually very useful except to frighten the opponent) does not refute Jason's point. At this point, Asian nations were clearly very much less powerful than Western nations because the west was industrialised in this period in a way that India and China certainly were not.

Could you spoiler the map, please?

 

[Karalysia]

The existence of an underindustrialised textile industry and a few gunpowder weapons that were largely inferior (given that Congreve rockets were not actually very useful except to frighten the opponent) does not refute Jason's point. At this point, Asian nations were clearly very much less powerful than Western nations because the west was industrialised in this period in a way that India and China certainly were not.

Could you spoiler the map, please?

My evidence indicates otherwise.

And no.

 

[spryllino]

EQ, Saxony, Trier, and Hanover (i.e. Britain) each ought to hold electorates too at this time.

Also, Trier isn't on the nation list, despite it being on the map (and on the map that you made to start with).

 

[Kentharu]

I agree with Kara and would like to add this. It seems that some parts of this NES have been effected by recentism, which is understandable. This refers to the political parties as well as the "Westernization" rule.

In regards to the Westernization rule, I find it racist, if not by its very name. But, let me clarify that by saying that I think you are being unintentionally racist. I hope you understand where I'm coming from EQ. I'm not just throwing around the word racist to be used as an insult, or to force you to change anything that I say is racist. It is true that Europe was able to, over the course of 500 years or so, dominate a significant portion of the world. However this was not done all at once. 500 years is a long time. Thus it does not in any way garuntee their success.

I would further like to add that, as Maharasthra, it would take me 15 turns, spending 100ep every turn, to become "Westernized". More realistically, if I were to invest 50ep every turn, it would then take me 30 turns to complete this task. Thus, it would be impossible for me to become Westernized unless I devoted my entire economy towards such an endevour, which would probably get me killed, rather than get me better technology with which to defend myself.

 

[spryllino]

I do find Westernisation a somewhat inaccurate concept, even though I don't think it's racist in the slightest; it's merely an attempt to portray the fact that the Western nations were industrially somewhat ahead of the Eastern nations, and, moreover, had the aggressiveness and inclination to colonise the rest of the world. This inclination and aggression and industrial advancement does need to be portrayed in the rules, mostly to prevent the Marathas from colonising Europe, or any such thing, which would be highly unlikely.

However, there is inaccuracy in this system in that no country ever Westernised like that. Countries that survived the colonial period, like China, did not do it by Westernising, and as such, I don't think either that this rule reflects reality.

 

[Milarqui]

I find myself in agreement with the others. While it is true that Western nations are more advanced in some regards, the way to make the other nations advance enough to be on par with Western nations is way too steep for many nations.

I suggest that you do some system by which the nations are able to advance on their own, but that contact with Western nations speeds up advancement. I do not actually expect for, say, a tribe in Central Africa to be able to develop gunpowder in a couple of years, but as more nations with the correct knowledge appear in those places, then those nations that don't have it will be able to go faster in their industrialization until they reach a situation in which they can go on their own.

 

[Kentharu]

Why would they need to develop gunpowder? Some native american nations were quite adept and adapting european technology to their own uses. For example, the horse.

 

[Milarqui]

Why would they need to develop gunpowder? Some native american nations were quite adept and adapting european technology to their own uses. For example, the horse.

I was only using gunpowder as an example. And the horse isn't exactly european technology, Asian people used the horse for many things and sometimes were much better than the European people doing them.

Despite that, you have to realise that gunpowder is the basis of any modern army. Of course, you also have to prepare your standing on the battlefield correctly, or you can get throughly screwed by an army that doesn't have gunpowder weaponry (Isandlwana is the prime example for this), but gunpowder means that it is easier to stay on cover, because bows and the such require you to be standing up, but with rifles you can stay on your knees behind a wooden wall and still see where you are shooting.

 

[The Farow]

I think this is for gameplay purposes. We try to simulate history and at this period the world was mostly dominated by European powers. Racism and trying to model history through rules are not the same thing. You may have jumped the ship a little too quickly Karalysia throwing those accusations out. EQ's motives for his gameplay simulation are not based on racism at all but rather trying to create a semi-plausible world. Europa Universalis III which the rules are brought from is meant to be a euro-centric game but that does not make it racist. The developers have admitted this but still gave a possible pathway for Asian, African, and American nations to catch up. In fact many of the tech groups are on par with Europe from much of the early part of the game if not better.

EQ has many NESes where people westernize way too quickly so he was trying to make it much more difficult to do so. He may have gone overboard in the other direction making it nearly impossible to do so which I think is it how it should be. Maybe loosen it up but still make it that only a few lucky nations will achieve westernization? Or put some nations closer to it then others with some EP already invested? Parts of Asia and the Middle East were clearly more advanced that parts of Africa or even parts of Europe at this time.

 

[Kentharu]

Gunpowder isn't the only thing that tipped the scales in favor of europeans. Germs played a large part in it, specifically against the native americans.

On a side note, I have not jumped ship, and will join regardless of rules.

 

[Circuit]

I don't find the Westernization rule to be racist, and if it is, it's because the world of 1800 was racist. I also think you guys are forgetting in your critiques about the possible aid Western nations could offer to "developing" nations, to assist them in their Westernization, since even today, Western forces, from foreign aid to multinational corporations, are still involved in the development of other nations. If that were factored in, does Westernization look so unrealistically burdensome?

 

[spryllino]

I find the problem with this rule to be mostly not that it makes it too hard to Westernise (because it was hard, so hard that, while most Eastern countries did it to an extent, no country actually really did it fully, maybe excepting Japan) but rather that it requires not just money to Westernise but the sharing of technologies by Europeans. I think that Westernisation, as a concept, is entirely right, but that it should require input by Europeans to make it happen, and it should be expensive, as EQ intends, because it should be the player's decision to determine precisely how far they intend to Westernise. As Kentharu said, it is not practical for the Maratha to Westernise quickly, and it shouldn't be easy either, because it wasn't.

 

[Kentharu]

"Westernization" is not nearly as expensive, or relevant as one might think. Plus, I find it ******** to simply blanket "Islamic nations"as under developed and forcing to westernize. Specifically the Ottoman Empire. While the Ottoman Empire is the sick man of Europe currently, it is by no means equivelant to Yemen in terms of its technological progress.

It is racist. You simply don't see how it is racist because you are white and I am not. What 18th century individuals thought of other races is irrelevant. I'm not talking about 18th century people, I'm talking about the rules.

As for your comparison of 18th century colonization to 21st century globalization, I think that is the perfect example of recentism. The 18th century is not the 21st century. That is why we call them different things, because they are different. Drawing parallels between two different periods of time is like comparing apples and oranges.

Just get rid of the westernization rule. Having such a blanket term for the advancement of non-european nations is both misguided and disingenuous to those nations.

 

[Terrance888]

I suggest the book 'After Tamerlane' as a good read of De-industrialization as a colonial method in the imperial quiver and of the rise and fall of Europe into and from "Prominence".

By the way, maybe industrializing is easier with In Character playing, hiring people from Europe, and playacting as a protectorate for a time.

 

[Behind The Mask]

Though its interesting, all of this seems rather tit-for-tat...

Why not, instead of 'Westernization', just call it something like 'Standardization'? Sounds a bit more legit and technical too.

 

[Kentharu]

I don't care what you feel like calling it. Change the rule, not the name.

 

[Justo]

Westernization is not something that needs to be achieved in this NES. When the stats are complete it will most likely be that Eastern and Islamic nations will be able to more than compete economically and militarily with Western countries. Economies will still grow however they will instead potentially develop differently than those in Europe.

If Westernization is desired then there are also ways to reduce the overall price tag as has been mentioned in these rules E.G. Reforms and outside assistance.

 

[Karalysia]

"Westernization" is not nearly as expensive, or relevant as one might think. Plus, I find it ******** to simply blanket "Islamic nations"as under developed and forcing to westernize. Specifically the Ottoman Empire. While the Ottoman Empire is the sick man of Europe currently, it is by no means equivelant to Yemen in terms of its technological progress.

It is racist. You simply don't see how it is racist because you are white and I am not. What 18th century individuals thought of other races is irrelevant. I'm not talking about 18th century people, I'm talking about the rules.

As for your comparison of 18th century colonization to 21st century globalization, I think that is the perfect example of recentism. The 18th century is not the 21st century. That is why we call them different things, because they are different. Drawing parallels between two different periods of time is like comparing apples and oranges.

Just get rid of the westernization rule. Having such a blanket term for the advancement of non-european nations is both misguided and disingenuous to those nations.

I second this post.