Why is school giving me negative research points ?

[DRJ]

When it comes down to politics it's dirty and machevellian, you can deny it or not, it's as I percieve history. And although my sketch was a bit sharp it's what happened on a political layer. This layer can also be half-conscious to the protagonists and consist of different other layers like ethical and social circumstances. Nevertheless there were political thinking actors in that time and as we speak about the German Peasant War: the year after it ended Machiavelli dies, so it's excactly the time when "the Prince" was becoming popular and thus the political process the german provincial princes drew towards Kaiser and Pope had religion as a welcome catalysator for the power struggle. Luther was a desired piece in unraveling that knot.

Spoiler :

a german singer once pictured that bond like this:
'Der Minister nimmt flüsternd den Bischof beim Arm: - Halt Du sie dumm, ich halt sie arm.'
The secretary twitches the arm of the bishop and whispers: You keep them dumb, I keep them poor.

And in regard of the jews: he said some ugly things about them (based ont he common mans prejeduces of the time), not so all peace and love by this man. The german - and I guess the international left as well also never forgave Luther for not helping the peasants against the rich aristocracy "Am Freßtrog der Obrigkeit" (fed and protected by the establishment) as well as Luther along with other reformators like Calvin planted the seeds of the workethics

Spoiler :

("if you work hard, god loves you" evolved to "if you have money you deserve to have power, so having money is the ultimate religious goal and conscious-proof profits are it's rite" -- that explains why the american right is so fundamentalist in their way, I guess)

that drove humanity into inhuman industrial ages anglo-saxon style capitalism as well as it's neo-liberal post-modern offspring.

 

[Hanny]

Nevertheless there were political thinking actors in that time and as we speak about the German Peasant War: the year after it ended Machiavelli dies, so it's excactly the time when "the Prince" was becoming popular and thus the political process the german provincial princes drew towards Kaiser and Pope had religion as a welcome catalysator for the power struggle. .

Chrolology is wrong, the Prince first edition, published in latin was in 1532, 5 years after Machievil died.

 

[DRJ]

Well that might be but I am sure we agree that a collection of political thinking only can be made if its content is alive in society, so the princes secretaries and the other major players knew about those strategies even without having read Machiavellis book, it was just a compendium of the processes of his time.
The strategies Sun Tzi described were also known to generals before his time, he just standardized them as Machiavelli this in his time. So actually, it does not matter when "The Prince" was published but that it was published, proving that the social climate of the late renaissance was able to influence people into being political thinkers and as such interacting with their puppets.

 

[Hanny]

So actually, it does not matter when "The Prince" was published but that it was published, proving that the social climate of the late renaissance was able to influence people into being political thinkers and as such interacting with their puppets.

Chronolgy always matters,and your was false ( another flawed appeal to authority) as as you ascribed cause and effect from something not in print, and had moved the European knowledge/practice of its political philosophy, of the contents of the Prince into a different time frame than it actually existed in.

Well that might be but I am sure we agree that a collection of political thinking only can be made if its content is alive in society, so the princes secretaries and the other major players knew about those strategies even without having read Machiavellis book, it was just a compendium of the processes of his time.

No we would not. All contempories were shocked by its contents when it was published.


The Prince is unique, not because it explains how to take control of other lands and how to control them, but because it gives advice that often disregards all moral and ethical rules. About this Machiavelli states that:

"Because how one ought to live is so far removed from how one lives that he who lets go of what is done for that which one ought to do sooner learns ruin than his own preservation: because a man who might want to make a show of goodness in all things necessarily comes to ruin among so many who are not good. Because of this it is necessary for a prince, wanting to maintain himself, to learn how to be able to be not good and to use this and not use it according to necessity."

Dont forget Cesere Borgia was his role model for much of his exposistion, and he was hardly how europes elite went about doing doing things.

 

[code99]

And to think all this started as an innocent question about a "bug" to my eyes lol

Anyway, sorry for the intrusion

 

[DRJ]

Chronolgy always matters,and your was false ( another flawed appeal to authority) as as you ascribed cause and effect from something not in print, and had moved the European knowledge/practice of its political philosophy, of the contents of the Prince into a different time frame than it actually existed in.

Chronology sometimes misleads because it distracts the observer to comprehend the bigger picture.
History is a floating process. Speaking in civish: do you think the people of your empire do only know what lets say "Political Philosophy" is when you reseach turn 60 of 60? They even have a glimpse of it at turn 1 and at turn 59 they are masters of it, turn 60 crowns it with a compendium.

And of course courtly perception was all 'outraged and astonished' - lol but when not speaking in public they whisper to their foes: I always told you that's how to do poiitics, but damn, finally someone stated it to the crowd (the crowd of aristocrats, that is)!

And to think all this started as an innocent question about a "bug" to my eyes lol

Anyway, sorry for the intrusion

Lol you see how politics is done in Civ. You're a player in the bigger game now^^

It's an error more than a Bug and it does need addressing. Unfortunately your point got lost in personality conflicts. For my part I 'msorry for derailing your thread. You brought up a valid problem.

lol

@Code99
I am not sorry for 'deralling' the thread. The important facts have been discussed and even beyond that. You should be honored instead that your thread has been beautified
Ok, forgive my 'arrogance', its just some kind of perverse delight (in the sense of "diebische Freude" - thievish happiness), that often is misunderstood.

 

[JosEPh_II]

And to think all this started as an innocent question about a "bug" to my eyes lol

Anyway, sorry for the intrusion

It's an error more than a Bug and it does need addressing. Unfortunately your point got lost in personality conflicts. For my part I 'msorry for derailing your thread. You brought up a valid problem.

JosEPh

 

[Hanny]

Chronology sometimes misleads because it distracts the observer to comprehed the bigger picture.

Incorrect, chronology is the sequence that events follow, events happen in a sequence, and the comprehension of those events, in the correct sequence is one of your problems of understanding history.

Battle of Hastings is always fought in 1066, not in any other timeframe.

You version (" the year after it ended Machiavelli dies, so it's excactly the time when "the Prince" was becoming popular "made up history because it never happened) requires not that Macchiavelli published work inaugurated a methodological and cultural revolution that was to influence political theory, historiography and the philosophy of history, in Europe, but that everything in it was already known and practised in Europe.

http://dept.polisci.wisc.edu/syllab... - Political Theory - Reading Machiavelli.pdf

Correcting your mistakes, would be a full time effort, so instead we are done.

 

[Aevum]

I for one immensely enjoyed reading all the arguements and banter. It really brings an interesting scope to history if you imagine these background things happening while you play your own game of civ. A new relgion found in my city? Is this not my neighbor resting control from me? He offeres me books in trade....filled with vile propagahnda no doubt!!! lol

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

The suggested change of diminishing returns from extra monasteries is not something I can do in XML. It will require SDK work.

I have not been able to find where BUILDING_PUBLIC_SCHOOL replaces monasteries, but I am still searching.

 

[code99]

@Code99
I am not sorry for 'deralling' the thread. The important facts have been discussed and even beyond that. You should be honored instead that your thread has been beautified
Ok, forgive my 'arrogance', its just some kind of perverse delight (in the sense of "diebische Freude" - thievish happiness), that often is misunderstood.

It's an error more than a Bug and it does need addressing. Unfortunately your point got lost in personality conflicts. For my part I 'msorry for derailing your thread. You brought up a valid problem.

JosEPh

Oh i dont mind it at all, was just funny of sorts that all this started from that little thing
By all means continue, its interesting reading the arguments. Wished i could pitch in but history aint my thing

The suggested change of diminishing returns from extra monasteries is not something I can do in XML. It will require SDK work.

I have not been able to find where BUILDING_PUBLIC_SCHOOL replaces monasteries, but I am still searching.

I would help out but im only familiar with basic xml, wouldnt know where to look if its SDK related.

I would also like to say that this issue isnt happening only for research, ive noticed similar behavior for gold aswell. Infact i think i saw once a wonder that gave +% in gold income but the actual numbers were negative ...

 

[Koshling]

I would also like to say that this issue isnt happening only for research, ive noticed similar behavior for gold aswell. Infact i think i saw once a wonder that gave +% in gold income but the actual numbers were negative ...

If you've seen that in v22 it's a bug and you should post a save that illustrates it. It was a bug in the reporting of actuals (not in the actual calculation of gold you actually got) that was fixed about a week ago

 

[code99]

If you've seen that in v22 it's a bug and you should post a save that illustrates it. It was a bug in the reporting of actuals (not in the actual calculation of gold you actually got) that was fixed about a week ago

dunno bout v22, havent got that far yet. That issue was in v21