Feudalism and Monarchy

[Benderino]

Has it botherend anyone else that "Feudalism" in the game comes after "Monarchy"? Studying our modern European history, we can infer that "monarchy" may have come first, perhaps, but that was during the feudal states.

It wasn't until the 30 Years War, the "Staten System", and Louis XIVth Absolutism that feudalism was totally destroyed in Western Europe. Then came the theory behind Absolute Monarchs, and the Divine Right of Kings. These kings centralized power in themselves, destroyed the power of the nobility--through acts like the creation of Versailles, for example--and consolidated the military forces in their "new" countries.

Feudalism was being faded out since the beginning of the Renaissance after the Black Death of 1348-51. Feudalism was what the "governments" of nearly all European "civilizations" from during the Dark Age through about 1450. From that time and after, France, Spain, and England all "nationalized" under a single leader, to some extent and they were known as the "New Monarchis": France under Louis XI (1461-1483) of the Valois line, Spain in 1469 through the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, and England with the beginning of the Tudor Dynasty (1485-1603) with the first king, Henry VII (1485-1509), who consolidated power at the closure of the Wars of the Roses.

Hence, I propose that Monarchy be after feudalism and subsequently more powerful than the corrupt feudal states with their reliance on vassalage, serfdom, etc.

...Unless of course, the creatos of the game were thinking of the Caesars in that they were Emperors, but monarchs none-the-less. What do you think?

 

[Vietcong]

the monarchy in the game is a more ancehnt monarchy, if anything, the 2 govs shold come earlyer,(monarchy and rebulic) despotism shod be a chice at the start, but thay shold have a city state or orgliarcy gov that u start with.

 

[Benderino]

I agree. Oligarchy (where the few govern the many) was in discussion during Socrates' time (around and before 400 BCE).

A city states government is a great idea (Italy during the Renaissance). So is a Theocracy. But meh.

 

[General Porkins]

There were ancient monarchies - Rome had emperors for a time, the pharoahs were certainly monarchial - that came long before feudalism and the absolute monarchies of Europe. I'd also like to point out that if you so desire you can research feudalism before monarchy if you think it is more realistic (it is not required to proceed into the middle ages).

In my opinion the governments are fine as is...

 

[Xen]

@ Benderin foget oligiarchies being duscussed in the time of Socarates, Oligiarchies had been around in greece alone sine the time of Mycenaeans, and Minoans, some 800 years before that time

 

[Emperor Xerxes]

Theocracy should be a government and possibly Aristocracy/Oligarchy. But apart from that the governments are cool.

 

[Benderino]

Agreed, but I suppose that's for a different thread.

I think then "monarchy" should be called something else, and there should be another "monarchy" placed after feudalism but before democracy. I also think republic should come way before either of these governments. And "Democracy" should be changed to "Modern Democracy".

 

[Plug]

I agree with Benderino that Monarchy is misleading since it seems to refer to the Absolutist monarchies that formed from Feudalism in Medieval Europe.

But there were Monarchies before Republics. I'm quite certain that early Rome was ruled by kings. It only later became a Republic. Although Engels might say that early Monarchies were not Monarchies at all but more like Despotisms (?!).

Evidently I'm running myself into circles here. Maybe Firaxis are as confused as the academics and I am?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by Plug
I agree with Benderino that Monarchy is misleading since it seems to refer to the Absolutist monarchies that formed from Feudalism in Medieval Europe.

But there were Monarchies before Republics. I'm quite certain that early Rome was ruled by kings. It only later became a Republic. Although Engels might say that early Monarchies were not Monarchies at all but more like Despotisms (?!).

Evidently I'm running myself into circles here. Maybe Firaxis are as confused as the academics and I am?

Rome, and most ancient governments, would best be modelled by Despotism. The republic enjoyed a brief period in Rome aswell. Feudalism developed after this across most of Europe, followed up by absolute monarchies. I guess the best distinction is that Despotism is ruling by force, and monarchies rule by inherited divine right (and they rely on the aristocracy instead of purely by force). Fuedalism is kind of like a decentralised mix of monarchy and despotism. The republic is similarly decentralised but includes representation for the people in some form. For example, WW2 Japan was ruled by an Emperor, but it was not a despotism, it was an absolute monarchy. Feudalism should certainly appear before Monarchy. Although some republics appeared before the days of absolute monarchs in Europe, they enjoyed their main use in the renaissance.

 

[jimkirk]

ancient japan i belive was mainly feudelism china had some sort of monarch i belive long ago .. i am not that familiar with chinese history but its possible that they had a monarch be4 europe

also rome and the byzantium empire were ruled by just that "Emporors" which is the same as monarchs.. but actually there were monarchs that ruled with absolute power going way back .. if you are familiar with the old testament there was monarchs in the times of abraham and later in the times of the prophet samual .. now that is really ancient

 

[Benderino]

YES, that's it! Ancient Rome could be considered a despotism (or--thinking of Augustus--and "Enlightened Despotism"

 

[cgannon64]

Any more governments would be too much, IMO. Unless they made some kind of sub-government system, where you can choose different variations of one type of government.

 

[Benderino]

Oooh, that'a a neat idea. I'm not propsing any new governments, though, just revamping the order of when they come into play.

 

[Emperor Xerxes]

The democracy would be more realistically named Representative Democracy as in Parliaments or Congress. It also comes in too early. It might be labelled on the US as the first democracy in 1775 but thats wasn't a democracy at all, it was merely replacing the British Constitutional Monarchy with an Oligarchy controlled by Washington. Democracy didn't come until 1820 at the earliest with the reforms but could be the 1920s onwards if you could universal suffrage. And Theocracy should be an early Fascism with forced resettlement etc.

My two cents.

 

[player1 fanatic]

As far as I understand, in Civ3 Monarchy both represenets some ancient monrahies (like Roman Empire), as well as some more modern apsolutistic monarchies of colonial age and later (pre-revolution France, Austria, etc).