Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
pblur said:
Oh, that's completely wrong. The Habsburgs were seriously impressive, with a dynasty that lasted half a millenium. WAY more stable than (say) the Plantagenets.

Their dynasty is one of the longest and most stable in history, but our anglocentric education tends to gloss over their achievements.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Albeit it was Charles V who was the last fuedalist. After him the era of the modern state was begun. And with Time it slowly eroded the remnants of the old order, till naught but empty titles where left.
 
Last edited:
ctulhuslp said:
But our current situation has nothing to do with "cannot afford", unless he means opposing -2.5, -3.5 Stability options.
-1.5, beyond the administrative load increase due to bigger population (which probably is not that big of a change with our currently big population and it being represented by Stability), has no chance of causing us serious problems, let alone killing us, which is just pure, distilled, unfounded in reality fearmongering unless arguing against at least -2.5 and higher.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The fact that it isn't going to immediately kill us doesn't mean we can afford it. Don't conflate the two concepts.

ctulhuslp said:
We do not critically need stability at this point, we are sitting at +1 and taking +1 actions with only a chance of loss from vassal action.
If we were critically low on stability (at -2 or even -1) I would understand your position; but our Stability is, while not perfect, quite well off.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Lower stability puts us closer to the edge, and has persistent bad effects. Even being at +1 is very much suboptimal; we should be aiming to be at 2-3 when we can. Of course, we are in the middle of multiple crises now so we don't exactly have time to boost stability... but that only makes it MORE important that we conserve it, not less. As I see it, the thread is probably going to rush forward with the Palace megaproject soon, which means we have even less free time to actually repair our crumbling stability.
 
maximillian said:
And yet it was an empire that stood for nearly a century, a testament to the glory that was, yet never will be. The last awesome charge of the fuedal order, Although it died, it did so proudly, with the élan befitting its august stature. It left behind such monuments that history will forever remember the divinely inspired scerenity of thier order.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
He stood for a century. We have stood for MILLENNIA!
 
pblur said:
Oh, that's completely wrong. The Habsburgs were seriously impressive, with a dynasty that lasted half a millenium. WAY more stable than (say) the Plantagenets.

Their dynasty is one of the longest and most stable in history, but our anglocentric education tends to gloss over their achievements.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And yet, none of that refutes what DragonParadox said. The Habsburg "empire" was, at least in Charles V's age, a loose collection of territories that just happened to have the same ruler. And that of course is true for most empires of the time. Which is exactly DP's point: Feudalism means there isn't much of an actual realm.
 
Susano said:
And yet, none of that refutes what DragonParadox said. The Habsburg "empire" was, at least in Charles V's age, a loose collection of territories that just happened to have the same ruler. And that of course is true for most empires of the time. Which is exactly DP's point: Feudalism means there isn't much of an actual realm.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They're also more likely to be low-end states, more like a gang or a mafia organization than a state that invest in the economic growth for additional tax revenue.

Take a look at what we're doing with the lowlanders. We don't even want taxes or tributes from them(at least, not at this time), yet we're investing in them anyway, if only to prevent some other bastards from taking it. This is what a high-end state does.
 
Susano said:
And yet, none of that refutes what DragonParadox said. The Habsburg "empire" was, at least in Charles V's age, a loose collection of territories that just happened to have the same ruler. And that of course is true for most empires of the time. Which is exactly DP's point: Feudalism means there isn't much of an actual realm.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


That perspective is so post-fuedalist.
 
PrimalShadow said:
The fact that it isn't going to immediately kill us doesn't mean we can afford it. Don't conflate the two concepts.


Lower stability puts us closer to the edge, and has persistent bad effects. Even being at +1 is very much suboptimal; we should be aiming to be at 2-3 when we can. Of course, we are in the middle of multiple crises now so we don't exactly have time to boost stability... but that only makes it MORE important that we conserve it, not less. As I see it, the thread is probably going to rush forward with the Palace megaproject soon, which means we have even less free time to actually repair our crumbling stability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ehh. I mean...this is a good argument - about any Stability loss having some bad covered effects and it being a generally bad timing, I admit, but the thing with CA is that it is even more important to show generosity now.
It is not much of a sacrifice and commitment if it costs us nothing; the thing about two mites comes to mind.
Besides, with the most recent genocide, our CA is somewhat in danger. While genociding, we've taken the minimal amount of refugees (some of them "refugees" from burning city, who had a choice between burning and coming to us and are implies by those scarequotes to be almost slaves if I read the implication right), and our more generous commitments were taken when it did not cost us all that much, so I am unsure how good/bad is the state of CA.

But yeah, "now is particularly bad timing with the need to rush two megaprojects while fighting several wars and we have no actions free for stability rising" is a decent enough argument.
 
maximillian said:
That perspective is so post-fuedalist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No. Declaring it an empire is modernist. Back at the day, a Carinthian would think of himself as a Carinthian. Oh yes, sure, Charles V was his rightful Duke, but what did he care about the folks over in Lower Austria or in Tyrol? Nevermind Holland or Valencia. The view that there are only those single territories, and yeah, some of them are ruled together by a single guy, I think that view is much more contemporary for feudalism.
 
Kiba said:
They're also more likely to be low-end states, more like a gang or a mafia organization than a state that invest in the economic growth for additional tax revenue.

Take a look at what we're doing with the lowlanders. We don't even want taxes or tributes from them(at least, not at this time), yet we're investing in them anyway, if only to prevent some other bastards from taking it. This is what a high-end state does.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


The king invested in his crown lands aplenty, the vast majority of the lands where not Crown land though. They had thier own elites and powers that be who invested in them.
The idea of the state is in itself rather modern, for fuedalists, the powers of the land invest in the land, or obtain primission to do so in someone else's land.
 
Susano said:
No. Declaring it an empire is modernist. Back at the day, a Carinthian would think of himself as a Carinthian. Oh yes, sure, Charles V was his rightful Duke, but what did he care about the folks over in Lower Austria or in Tyrol? Nevermind Holland or Valencia. The view that there are only those single territories, and yeah, some of them are ruled together by a single guy, I think that view is much more contemporary for feudalism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...



The idea of an empire as a state is what's modernist. The fuedalists where emperors and had empires, in thier times the vow of allegiance and Kingly influence is what counted not the existence of a state apparatus that actually extends to the lands. That concept is very much post renaissance.

To say it was an empire without a state would be correct however.
 
Last edited:
maximillian said:
The king invested in his crown lands aplenty, the vast majority of the lands where not Crown land though. They had thier own elites and powers that be who invested in them.
The idea of the state is in itself rather modern, for fuedalists, the powers of the land invest in the land, or obtain primission to do so in someone else's land.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Rome would like to have a word with you. The Empire of Augustus or even Justinian was far more deserving of its name them that of Charles the Fifth.
 
maximillian said:
The idea of an empire as a state is what's modernist. The fuedalists where emperors and had empires, in thier times the vow of allegiance and Kingly influence is what counted not the existence of a state apparatus that actually extends to the lands. That concept is very much post renaissance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Carinthian vowed allegiance to their Duke. The Aragonese vowed allegiance to their king. That this was the same guy was irrelevant to them, though. There was no real connection between the two except the person of the monarch. Even their vows of allegiance were completely seperate from and parallel to each other.
 
the state before the individual

Greater Justice
Justice exists for the good of all, protecting the community from the depravity of those who would do it damage.
Pros: Justice is a community objective that can be served through the careful application of punishment
Cons: The needs of the many can outweigh the needs of the few
 
Susano said:
The Carinthian vowed allegiance to their Duke. The Aragonese vowed allegiance to their king. That this was the same guy was irrelevant to them, though. There was no real connection between the two except the person of the monarch. Even their vows of allegiance were completely seperate from and parallel to each other.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


They paid a tithe to the king and sent him some troops. Thier Lords spent time in the Kings Court. That was all the connection that was desired and required by the era.


DragonParadox said:
Rome would like to have a word with you. The Empire of Augustus or even Justinian was far more deserving of its name them that of Charles the Fifth.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Aye but it wasn't a fuedal empire, albeit the seeds were sown.
 
Susano said:
Which leads to suboptimal results. For some investments, you need the full backing of a fully centralized state. Look at all the megaprojects we've done, for example.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And yet, all the palace economy, massively centralized states in history fell apart millenia ago.

It's simply not scalable, so tech and literacy eventually require some amount of decentralization.
 
TheDanishLord said:
the state before the individual

Greater Justice
Justice exists for the good of all, protecting the community from the depravity of those who would do it damage.
Pros: Justice is a community objective that can be served through the careful application of punishment
Cons: The needs of the many can outweigh the needs of the few
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I sincerely hope that this means the public good rather than the state.
And even then, that way lies horrors unimaginable.
 
maximillian said:
As if fuedalists didn't build many of the world's greatest monuments.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For Crow's sake, if you're constantly propagating that socio-political order, at least spell it right!

Anyway - like what? The Gothic cathedrals? Pfah, not much compared to actual ancient mega-engineering projects. And even then, done in the cities, which stood outside the "normal" feudal order.
 
Susano said:
For Crow's sake, if you're constantly propagating that socio-political order, at least spell it right!

Anyway - like what? The Gothic cathedrals? Pfah, not much compared to actual ancient mega-engineering projects. And even then, done in the cities, which stood outside the "normal" feudal order.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Spelling isn't a requirement for ideological purity!


And the great monasteries and nunnerys?
The castles and palaces? The manors? The cities?


As for the ancients, not even thier grandest temples could come close to the sheer majesty and grand architecture of the gothic cathedrals and thier renaissance successors.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top