Preview Thread: PerfNES I: [Insert Title Here]

[ChiefDesigner]

'Republic' is a catch-all term which can refer to any form of non-monarchical state. In this sense it's used to refer to a mercantilist oligarchy, like the Republic of Venice. You can't claim that there were never non-monarchical states in pre-modern China.

I have been using, for this entire conversation, my definition of 'modern China' as 'China prior to extensive European contact'. I can claim that there were never non-monarchical states in pre-modern China, because the example given is both modern... and not actually in China.

 

[Perfectionist]

Right, I fully realize that the Chinese situation is less than completely althistorically plausible, but I'm kind of unwilling to completely overhaul it at this late stage. People who know more than me about China - i.e. practically everyone - are welcome, in fact encouraged, to give suggestions for improving it, but I'm not going to change anything that would really fundamentally alter the dynamics. I hope you understand.

Yes, I think a Rulers and Heirs stat would be useful.

Right, I'll do that then.

This should presumably also be statified, then?

Hm, maybe. I sort of wanted to keep loans a bit opaque, and there are besides a couple of different interest rates depending on the type of loan. I'll have to think about it.

 

[Thlayli]

Most major metro area universities have some sort of consortium agreement with the others. I can get into Georgetown's library, for instance.

The question is whether you'd want to; I've never seen a more hideous building. :3

 

[Masada]

References?

I'm not a substitute for a little bit of Google due dilligence. My time is actually valuable.

Still, that's the 17th century, well after extensive European contact, and centered around companies explicitly founded to trade with Westerners.

... er, kongsi predate European contact.

China will only accept silver for tea, silk, porcelain and other luxury goods; the technology and infrastructure to transport mass quantities of opium by bulk just doesn't exist yet.

This is false. Go read Reid (1988 & 1993) for a corrective.

Just based on this map, there's no profit in the southeast Asia trade, not for Chinese traders--there aren't any huge silver deposits in Malacca.

Stupidly false. Pick up a book sometime. I would suggest starting with van Luer (1946), moving onto Steinberg's (1988) & Milton's (all eds.) standard texts, before transitioning into the corpus of literature I call home, namely Wolter's (1952) & Coedes' (all eds.) standard texts. And if you really want to hit the classics go read I-Tsing's (690s) work and the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (1st Century).

Given the lack of a global economy, there's no prosperous overseas trade (compared to the internal Chinese trade) and thus no reason for merchant houses to exist.

This is ******ed. For lowbrow coverage go pickup Abu-Lughod (1991).

Now, if we want to magically handwave all that away, whatever. But we should admit that we're waving spacebats around up front.

Or magically waving away spacebats to fit a jaundiced and inaccurate vision of history?

I prefer my narrative.

 

[Dachs]

Reference Bukkake is fun, but you could at least give one example by name or something :3

 

[Tee Kay]

I suspect some of it might already be in the Ming China thread.

 

[Masada]

Bah. Reid's basic premise is that the majority of trade in, between and out of Southeast Asia was in bulk goods, in contradiction to van Luer's assumption that what trade did happen was in luxuries and that bulk commodities trade could never have happened. Van Leur supported his narrative with some well reasoned by ultimately erroneous assumptions. Notably, he assumed that Southeast Asia had nothing to trade (sounds familiar) outside of spice (maybe not).

The problem is that this is patently false, and even a lazy reading of the sources available to him - mostly Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch - reveal otherwise. Unfortunately, he discounted heavily against the Iberians and sided with his own - Dutch - compatriots beliefs. The unfortunate thing, is that the system he was trying to describe has ceased to exist by the time the Dutch appeared in any great numbers. The fall of Malacca is usually seen the as the pivotal point. I don't think it was, the rapid shift towards Bari in Sumatera and to ports further up the Malaysian coast suggest a system that was already in a period of fluidity. Quite what this means, is something else. But it would seem to suggest that Malacca was already undergoing a period of relative decline, not absolute mind, as a result, I believe, of a stronger eastern termini - Makassar - and the renewed strength of the Javanese port polities.

Works like Abu-Lughod and Findlay & O'Rourke take it a step further and integrate these regional economies into a wider inter-regional system of trade. This world systems theory has produced some interesting results. Some negative. Some positive. The propensity towards generalisation is galling. But that's to be expected with the breadth of subject being reviewed. (Suffice to say that I loathe Abu-Lughod's coverage of Southeast Asia). In any case, there's a whole body of literature that supports the existence of a unified system of trade that was not piecemeal in nature, but wholly intentional on the part of its actors. Merchants deliberately traded in spice, they didn't just pick it up and pass it down the line by luck. And this is a huge change in perception that's really only occurred in the last perhaps 30 years in most areas and fields. Southeast Asia began much earlier, and provided some of the impetus to other scholars particularly Chinese scholars to effect the change. But that owes more to our collective position in the global context as a major trade hub and one of the most significant links in the global economy.

I suspect some of it might already be in the Ming China thread.

Yeah, there's stuff in there as well.

 

[ChiefDesigner]

Interesting. I'll have to add Reid to my reading list--what do you recommend I start with?

----

Just looking at the Ming revenue figures, though, illustrates that foreign trade, regardless of how lucrative it may have been, didn't represent a substantial fraction of the revenue of the Ming state apparatus--I see 90k taels from the maritime tariff, compared to 2 million taels from the salt tax alone. Where are the incentives to shift towards plutocratic oligarchy, when the rents you can extract from your population are so high?

Not to mention the social position of traders in Confucian hierarchy--why would villagers in the interior accept rule by their social inferiors, who enact policies that are totally against their interests?

 

[Dachs]

Just looking at the Ming revenue figures, though, illustrates that foreign trade, regardless of how lucrative it may have been, didn't represent a substantial fraction of the revenue of the Ming state apparatus--I see 90k taels from the maritime tariff, compared to 2 million taels from the salt tax alone. Where are the incentives to shift towards plutocratic oligarchy, when the rents you can extract from your population are so high?

Isn't that kind of irrelevant for a state that basically just controls Guangdong?

 

[Tee Kay]

Also, I'm guessing the Ming tariffs only account for officially-sanctioned trade, and don't account for the unknown but possibly large level of clandestine unofficial trade.

 

[Masada]

Interesting. I'll have to add Reid to my reading list--what do you recommend I start with?

Start with Milton and Steinberg. The rest is way over your head.

Just looking at the Ming revenue figures, though, illustrates that foreign trade, regardless of how lucrative it may have been, didn't represent a substantial fraction of the revenue of the Ming state apparatus--I see 90k taels from the maritime tariff, compared to 2 million taels from the salt tax alone.

That seems rather low. Needleham likes to bandy around his figure of 300 million taels of silver flowing into China during the Ming dynasty. Annualised, that gives me a figure of somewhat more than a million taels a year of silver for the life of the dynasty for silver alone. Even with favourable tax rates, that's hard to reconcile even before we factor in the immense value of spice. Then there's the massive unquantifiable trade in 'drugs' and pepper. Not to mention, all the other stuff we don't really know all that much about. But you also have to factor in the effects of double - inter-provincial taxes - and triple taxing - sales taxes - not to mention tolls, the tribute trade and so forth. The probable effect is much greater than those intial figures suggest - and I'm still skeptical as to their veracity...

Where are the incentives to shift towards plutocratic oligarchy, when the rents you can extract from your population are so high?

I think you need to look at the propesnity of merchants particularily in Southern China to become mermbers of scholar gentry themselves within a generation. It wouldn't be that much of a shift, really. And certainly not of the magnitude you seem to be suggesting.

Not to mention the social position of traders in Confucian hierarchy--why would villagers in the interior accept rule by their social inferiors, who enact policies that are totally against their interests?

They seem to have done it pretty fine at other periods of Chinese history. And besides, it isn't like the peasant is going to snub his new landlord because the latter's father might have made his money from trade.

Also, I'm guessing the Ming tariffs only account for officially-sanctioned trade, and don't account for the unknown but possibly large level of clandestine unofficial trade.

Also this. It was large.

 

[North King]

1. Hungary
2. Pandyas

Despite the fact that you use the second most intensely hideous map type I've seen in this forum, everyone and their mother (by which I mean Thlayli and Thlayli) is nagging me to join this, and [other than the map] it does look really nice.

"Resume":

I've NESed since my join date... That's 7 years.

Among other things, my playing strengths seem to be defending while outnumbered and reversing the decline and destruction of dying nations (Gujarat in stJNESX, Union of Krakow in NES2 IV, Leagues of the Sea Peoples in JalNES I, Kelios in LINES II), and also taking obscure powers and leading them to quiet significance (Turkey, NES2 I), and keeping nations interesting despite already achieving what could be simply described as "hegemony" (Kalinga, ITNES I before the thread shift). I do admittedly have a certain hankering for ludicrously complicated wheels-within-wheels-within-tangled-webs plots to take over the world (Fourth Communist International in NES2 III), but these are usually outweighed by my general desire to build interesting stories.

tl;dr: I consider myself a "defensive," "diplomatic," "culturally-oriented" player.

I am probably more famous as a moderator, with two NESes in the top 25 by post count, one of which is ongoing in a halting, stuttering fashion.

For Hungary, I can cite that I am currently residing in Vienna, soon to visit Budapest (Esztergom is probably a long shot, though), and growing well-acquainted with the ambiance of Central Europe. Presumably, I have some access to local historical material, though admittedly not as much as I would like. I'm also pretty fond of entrenched little nations sandwiched in between much larger ones.

For the Pandyas, I can cite that I know more about Hinduism than lulzcastesystemlulz, that I don't think the dynasty is named after a vaguely ursine-looking animal, that I can name most of the major southern Indian dynasties, and that India has held a special fascination for me for a long time.

For both, I can tell you that I'm a history undergrad currently lacking access to his uber-library-of-awesome due to a stint of studying abroad. I'm not necessarily all that well-acquainted with the facts of the period, but I have a pretty deep grounding in theory, and a general love for everything historical. I am quite knowledgeable on the methods of warfare and cultural norms in both Europe and India.

My choices are ranked arbitrarily. Put me wherever you want a player more.

My choices are for realz on second thought.

 

[Masada]

everyone and their mother (by which I mean Thlayli and Thlayli)

This explains much.

 

[Kraznaya]

1. Hungary

omgomgomgomg


<3333

 

[Toteone]

Perfectionist, I can't find which of the 150+ pages the PoD is on in the Creative Ideas/NESes thread...

Also, I really hope I get my first choice... so far I seem to be the only one with 1st on Italy.
She's so yummy... allies everywhere she doesn't see.

If I get to be the Italian Empire I will seek to be recognized by the (Eastern) Roman Empire as the Western Roman Empire, and forge an alliance with Sicily and Egypt if Sicily is ok with it. Italians and Sicilian Normans will form the strongest alliance! (from there on maybe we can create solid relations with Gascon, the Longphort League and maybe even Provence and Denmark and Sweden)... Italy is like the best placed for alliances... it just hasn't realized it yet or has had/been-a dickish neighbor/s so far.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Perfectionist, I can't find which of the 150+ pages the PoD is on in the Creative Ideas/NESes thread...

It's something like one of the first posts, or maybe even the first post, that Perfectionist says there is no TL or particular PoD.

 

[Toteone]

Oh OK, thanks.

/ 10 minutes later / screw this, I'll just search on GtPod

OK after getting a little bit distracted I found its in the Alternate History Thread V. Just need to go through the pages now...

 

[spryllino]

Question: Are Bohemia and Poland currently fighting?

 

[Toteone]

It's page 13 of 17 on Alternate History V.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=322735&highlight=gtpod&page=13


OK, that was interesting, but Elves was right, not very illuminating on the early and early middle period (though some of the Eastern European states are helping a lot, I guess the extra backstory for the west crowds things out a bit).
Will we get a timeline summary later? : ) Not that I mind though, there's enough for me to go on, I'm reading up on the Carolingian dynasty to understand this Italy's ascendance.

 

[Adrogans]

I think you listed my choices as Abaddon's.