Ok, now I'm sure this has been brought up before, but I'm an ancient history minor, and I'm currently studying Roman history. It's clear, that they had a representive form of government. Obviously I could build the pyramids, but what would be a good way to implement it earlier? Also, what What about Athenian Democracy? I understand for game balance purposes certain things couldn't be implemented, but honestly, I think it would be interesting to have these in the game. What are other people's opinions?
Representation and Democracy...
- Thread starter L4zXX0r
- Start date
Powerslave
Prince
I totally agree with you, and I thought that this was how the Civ IV techtree was supposed to be implemented, as opposed to Civ III, where it was impossible to advance to a new era without getting all the techs. I figured that if I wanted to have an Athenian democracy or a Roman representative government, I could do so, by skipping other techs.
Well, you can still sort of do this, but it's very difficult, because Constitution and Democracy have all sorts of "historical" prerequisites that the ancient and classical civilizations did not have. So, I guess what we're supposed to do is go on a beeline to Constitution or Democracy. This strikes me as totally antithetical to how Civ IV was first described, and it was a bit of a downer to me.
I've gotten over it. It doesn't bother me any more. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing some shortcuts to Constitution and/or Democracy, if the player were willing to invest the beakers necessary. The Athenians most certainly did not have the printing press, yet they had a democratic form of rule. So did the Iroquois (who, in fact, were a major influence to the U.S. Continental Congress).
Personally, I'd suggest two new forms of government, available at the appropriate time (say, around the time of the Greek and Roman UBs):
Proto-Representative: +1 happiness in all cities, -25% distance maintenance
Proto-Democratic: +1 free specialist in all cities, +10% Great Person Points in all cities
Or whatever.
I agree one hundred percent. Democracy, or ancient forms of democracy should in my opinon be allowed earlier.
However I think the position of Firaxis was that the democracies that did exist before the Renaissance were exceptions to the rule of monarhcy, so that's whythey made it so difficult to implement.
Of course one way would be to allow all civics to be enabled from the start, with non-historical types with a higher upkeep, or perhaps representation/Universal suffrage giving additional bonuses for big cityies in the late game.
However I think the position of Firaxis was that the democracies that did exist before the Renaissance were exceptions to the rule of monarhcy, so that's whythey made it so difficult to implement.
Of course one way would be to allow all civics to be enabled from the start, with non-historical types with a higher upkeep, or perhaps representation/Universal suffrage giving additional bonuses for big cityies in the late game.
Exception to the rule? The Roman Republic lasted for 500 years before the Ceasars. They were THE major power in the western world. I don't see how the dark ages should make them an exception to the rule. The Greek Historian Polybius even made arguments that their constitution was the best, as it combined all the ancient classical governments into one, that is, Monarchy, Oligarchy and Democracy. Not to mention, many of the post-Roman empire Italian states, reverted back to a form of Republic up into and through the Rennasaince. In fact, this was almost crucial for the Rennasaince to happen. If I were Firaxis, I would add "Citizenship" as a technology with pre-reqs of writing and horseback riding (the highest class of Roman citizen were ones that could afford a horse), and that would give you access to something that resembles both Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic there.
Hmm the roman republic was not such a democracy. The ideas were there but like all human nature it was still a few ruling the masses.
The idea was that they had a plebian(sp?) representative but his comments held little or no sway. The senetors only voted for their own betterment in most cases. It wasnt the wonderful free society dreamed about. Whenever the Pleb representatives tried to make groundbreaking changes, like giving the land back to the people, sharing out land which the senators had taken beyond their allotted amount (one man could only own so much land, but senators had many farms and much land over this), they would end up blocked by no votes. If they pushed the matter, they would end up beaten and thrown into the River dead.
Monarchy best suits Rome because for most of their "great" era they were a monarchy. Ceaser was a monarch, so was Augustus and they actually did more for the people than the "Republic" though it may have been because they knew so well the masses held the key to their power.
The idea was that they had a plebian(sp?) representative but his comments held little or no sway. The senetors only voted for their own betterment in most cases. It wasnt the wonderful free society dreamed about. Whenever the Pleb representatives tried to make groundbreaking changes, like giving the land back to the people, sharing out land which the senators had taken beyond their allotted amount (one man could only own so much land, but senators had many farms and much land over this), they would end up blocked by no votes. If they pushed the matter, they would end up beaten and thrown into the River dead.
Monarchy best suits Rome because for most of their "great" era they were a monarchy. Ceaser was a monarch, so was Augustus and they actually did more for the people than the "Republic" though it may have been because they knew so well the masses held the key to their power.
I disagree. I'm also arguing here that Rome was a republic, not a democracy. Though it contained an element of democracy. I personally think their great era was the Republic era. They controlled from Asia Minor to the English, before Caesar was in completely in charge. Granted, things were incredibly corrupt at that point, but within the Rome (mainly the city) if you were a citizen, you could vote. Of course, like all governments, it was mainly ruled by the rich and powerful, but we see in today's world, that does not really change. As far as the ancient world went, if you were a Roman citizen, you probably had it good. Even if you were just a Latin, with some roman citizenship rights, you had it better than say, a chinese peseant.
Draknith
King
I think this would be a great idea. For a true Athenian Democracy though, I would put it that you could only have one city. A true democracy like the Athenian model could only work in a small setting. To balance this I would say that it gives you more science, gold, and + happiness with other civs.
An earlier republic-like govt would be great also.
An earlier republic-like govt would be great also.
Rex rgis of Ter
Me I'm a Creator
Maybe a new classical wonder that unlocks the civic Proto- Republic and can only be adopted by the owner of the wonder. Maybe the Senate wonder unlocked by Writing aloows the building of the wonder.
Proto- Republic is in the Government Category
+ 25%
in all cities
+ 25%
in 5 biggest cities
+ 1
in all cities
Proto- Republic is in the Government Category
+ 25%
in all cities+ 25%
in 5 biggest cities+ 1
in all cities
Scaramanga
Brickhead
Maybe a new classical wonder that unlocks the civic Proto- Republic and can only be adopted by the owner of the wonder. Maybe the Senate wonder unlocked by Writing aloows the building of the wonder.
Proto- Republic is in the Government Category
+ 25%
+ 25%
+ 1
That would be kinda neat. Instead of Athenian Democracy and Roman Republicanism being represented by the Universal Suffrage and Representation civics respectively, which are a long way off from the classical era they existed in, they could be wonders of the world giving appropriate bonuses and obseleting by the medieval age.
In older civ games there was a litracy rateing for your empire in the demographics as such this mesured how many librarys and schools your empire had verses the number of citys, now with that said i would suggest that high forms of rule like democracys need a highly educated populace to have any hope of functioning so i would suggest to put in place some form of measurement for how well educated the population is and if it is over a certain amount have these forms of goverment be applicable as options of course this comes with a trade off that if you dont adopt higher forms of rule with a highly educated populace that thay may give you trouble.
I personaly never liked how goverment systems were based on technology seeing as something like democracy you only need a willing people and leader for small democracy and a minor mass prodcution and writing for larger democracy.
I personaly never liked how goverment systems were based on technology seeing as something like democracy you only need a willing people and leader for small democracy and a minor mass prodcution and writing for larger democracy.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
I would count early forms of Democracy/Republic as Despotisms... not because they were "Despotic" but because they were limited in their ability to provide the "benefits" of representative government to a wide spectrum of the populace ie Athenian Democracy could not have governed multiple cities and didn't apply to a lot of Athenians as well.
Essentially 'Proto Democracies' were only a means of ruling the Capital city, not the whole empire... I say its included in the +1 and +8 commerce the Palace gives.
Essentially 'Proto Democracies' were only a means of ruling the Capital city, not the whole empire... I say its included in the +1
and +8 commerce the Palace gives.
Kadasbrass
Warlord
I'm just going to point out that any early age Republic based civics should include an very high maintaince cost. I suggest this because if you look at history Republics only existed in early history as small states. Most cases as City States such as Athens. Rome went from a Republic to a Empire due to its growing size and strong military which normally leads to a strong single ruler.
One of the major problems the Anti-federalist had with the US Constitution was that it would create a single large republic, which in history normally leads to Empire and King. They wanted the power to be invested in the states so that each state could remain a democracy, since democracy requires friendship and friendship can only form at a more local level.
Edit: I just want to say that I think Buracracy represents best an early republic type civic. Rome may of been a Republic, but it also had two counsel who ruled as well whom, had most of the powers of king shared between them. So that in the case of Rome Here-Rule and Buracracy both do a fair job of representing the Roman Republic
One of the major problems the Anti-federalist had with the US Constitution was that it would create a single large republic, which in history normally leads to Empire and King. They wanted the power to be invested in the states so that each state could remain a democracy, since democracy requires friendship and friendship can only form at a more local level.
Edit: I just want to say that I think Buracracy represents best an early republic type civic. Rome may of been a Republic, but it also had two counsel who ruled as well whom, had most of the powers of king shared between them. So that in the case of Rome Here-Rule and Buracracy both do a fair job of representing the Roman Republic
lutzj
The Last Thing You See
First, the Roman and Athenian republics were not only not democracies, they were REPUBLICS (big difference). Second, they were only psuedo-republics that were really more aristocratic in nature. And Greece was ruled mainly by monarchies (Alexander the Great was a monarch) except for Athens.
I would count early forms of Democracy/Republic as Despotisms... not because they were "Despotic" but because they were limited in their ability to provide the "benefits" of representative government to a wide spectrum of the populace ie Athenian Democracy could not have governed multiple cities and didn't apply to a lot of Athenians as well.
Essentially 'Proto Democracies' were only a means of ruling the Capital city, not the whole empire... I say its included in the +1
Except that Rome had a highly evolved form of Government for the time. Granted, most of the benefits were really only in metropolitan Rome (the city.) The only problem in Rome that seemed to bring it down, was that any time someone championed the Plebs, and worked toward their betterment, that person was generally killed.
zenspiderz
Just some bloke..
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,496
I have to agree with Krikkitone. The old roman republic and the athenian democracy are really more akin to CIV4s despotism. In each case 'universal' sufferage/representation only applied to the top 1% of their society. Slaves, women, plebs, common soldiery, freemen, and others non-citizens didn't count for anything. Really both of them had a kind of aristocratic or oligarchic system.
Of course it may also be true to say the same thing of modern 'democracies' and republics.
Of course it may also be true to say the same thing of modern 'democracies' and republics.
Disagree. In Athens, during the Age of Pericles, all free adult Athenian males could vote, hold office, etc, which I think is greater than 1% of the population. In ancient Rome during the Republic, by the time of the passage of the Lex Hortensia in 287 BC, all male Roman citizens, regardless of property qualifications, could vote, which to me is more than 1% of the population.
Its not perfect, but its better and more universal than any other contemporary state of their times.
What has Athenian democracy to do with democracy today?
Only the word
The concept and content are different.
The same is true for roman senat and US-senat.
Some people in the 18th century has an opinion about the antics, and speak the same words, but the world has changed between 500-200 BC and 1800 AD.
Only the word
The concept and content are different.
The same is true for roman senat and US-senat.
Some people in the 18th century has an opinion about the antics, and speak the same words, but the world has changed between 500-200 BC and 1800 AD.
I always thought that representation should represent the Athenian, Roman and other classical and medieval republics that were nevertheless not democracies in the modern sense.
My suggestion would be to have representation available in classical times rather than late renaissance. Although I don't remember exactly what tech unlocks is since I always build the pyramids.
My suggestion would be to have representation available in classical times rather than late renaissance. Although I don't remember exactly what tech unlocks is since I always build the pyramids.
BeyondCivilized
Warlord
Build Pyramid... What Problem?
