Paradox Studio Thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

What are your expectations for the EU5 release?


  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
Where Christianity factors in is science being a Christian project
[citation needed] Far more evidence for it being a European phenomenon derived from Hellenistic philosophical traditions like that of Plato and Aristotle, especially because whenever those two were taken as a major influence, like during the Islamic Golden Age, science and learning suddenly starts advancing really quickly.
 
Protestantism later had cultural differences, but also tended to decentralize power even more.
I don't think this holds much water under scrutiny. The British and Dutch became Protestant powers, true, but their love of decentralized rule came more from their High Medieval-Early Renaissance formative periods than the Protestant work ethic; the Church of England existed purely for the purpose of eliminating a parallel power structure. And on the other end of the spectrum you had states such as Prussia and Sweden which achieved a degree of centralization of power that would have made Louis XIV envious. Meanwhile the states that remained the most resistant to the Enlightenment impulse to centralize power were Spain and Poland-Lithuania.
[citation needed] Far more evidence for it being a European phenomenon derived from Hellenistic philosophical traditions like that of Plato and Aristotle, especially because whenever those two were taken as a major influence, like during the Islamic Golden Age, science and learning suddenly starts advancing really quickly.
'Hellenistic philosophical traditions' held that objects naturally were drawn to earth because the animating spirits inside of them just naturally loved the ground, not that there was a rational order to the world that could be observed. This is not to belittle the contributions of the ancient Greeks, but scientific rigor was not amongst them. Even Aristotle claimed things such as hot water freezes quicker than cold water and heavier objects fall quicker than lighter objects without so much as bothering to actually test them.

A basic examination of Rome's dearth of technological advancements - the only uncontestably Roman technological achievement was concrete, which has little to do with philosophy - despite their veneration of everything to do with Hellenic culture can similarly demonstrate the failure of Greek philosophy. As for the Islamic Golden Age, that period of desertification where the wheel disappeared in what used to be some of the most prosperous parts of the world? Most of its vaunted medical science originated from the Nestorian schools of Nisibis and Gondishapur. Nestorians (and Copts) were the scribes translating Greek and Syriac texts into Arabic. Its numerals were an importation from India. Many of its architectural achievements were the work of imported Greek architects (when they just weren't conversions of preexisting buildings). Even in astronomy and mathematics, the fields that Islamic thinkers made uncontestably the most progress in, the first strides were made by Sabians. Like Rome, the Caliphate was very good at combining the technological and philosophical innovations its conquered peoples made and then iterating on them, and like Rome it eventually strangled that innovation. Platonism was married to Sufi mysticism, Aristotelianism came under attack from mainstream Sunni theology - Ash'arism, not Averroes, triumphed in the end, and its victory was carried out by mathematicians no less - while the dhimmi populations doing the legwork of maintaining the practical knowledge Islam conquered were eventually ousted from their court positions, apostatized or were killed. With them went the Islamic Golden Age.

Plato and Aristotle are not the fount of all wisdom and Hellenistic philosophy alone would have never produced a scientific or technological revolution.
 
[citation needed] Far more evidence for it being a European phenomenon derived from Hellenistic philosophical traditions like that of Plato and Aristotle, especially because whenever those two were taken as a major influence, like during the Islamic Golden Age, science and learning suddenly starts advancing really quickly.
This one I posted earlier. It's a fairly new idea I've been exposed to so I can't argue a whole lot more.

Short of it: Christianity is Jewish mythology + Greek metaphysics, but it is also more than that in that it lead to the creation of proto-science and eventually science. Greek philosophers were sometimes empiricists and usually logic-based theorists. Rarely if ever did they actually combine the two. Christianity, somewhat in contradiction to the pagan world around it, believed that the world had a rational order. God is a being of reason, man is made in the image of God (we are rational moral agents too), and so there are predictable rules. God COULD rule arbitrarily, but he doesn't.

Philosophy --> Proto-Science --> Science

It's really not Greeks vs Christians, its Christians as a refinement of what the Greeks were doing. I suspect (I'm far, far far from an expert on this stuff, it's very new and interesting to me) that the Greeks would have wound up creating a sophisticated monotheistic religion on their own, was basically what the Neo-Platonists and stuff like that were up to already. Christianity was very useful because it framed it as revealed religion, which is less believable for a lot of intellectual types but is far more believable for the masses.

The Medieval monasteries are the closest thing anyone had to a research university back then (to say nothing of literal universities and scholasticism as an approach). The Renaissance was a big improvement in the way things were done, but it's not so much a turn away from Christianity as it is a full embracing of what the Church was already up to but had muddled up with tons of superstititous bullshit. Muslim scholarship tended to, when it wasn't just blindly imitating what the Greeks and Christians did, be legal studies. Muslims have theology, but their religion - Jews too - revolves more around the study of the proper practice (orthopraxy) than the proper belief (orthodoxy). Same with Confucianism. Even if only by shaping people's attitudes, this lends itself to very conservative cultures since all energy is wasted on trying to figure out how to Jew God instead of how to understand creation as the work of God.

I don't think this holds much water under scrutiny. The British and Dutch became Protestant powers, true, but their love of decentralized rule came more from their High Medieval-Early Renaissance formative periods than the Protestant work ethic; the Church of England existed purely for the purpose of eliminating a parallel power structure. And on the other end of the spectrum you had states such as Prussia and Sweden which achieved a degree of centralization of power that would have made Louis XIV envious. Meanwhile the states that remained the most resistant to the Enlightenment impulse to centralize power were Spain and Poland-Lithuania.
I should specify Calvinism, really. There's a clear trend where the more productive, happy, healthy early modern societies are the Calvinist ones: Swizterland, Netherlands, Scotland, New England, and to some extent England where the Church of England is always in a tension with Calvinism.

Prussia is kind of a pisshole until the 1800s, as I gather - like, Germany in general is just a backwards shithole of Europe outside of Austria - and Scandinavia just sort of sits on its ass.

My argument has nothing to do with the Protestant work ethic. I don't see a contradiction (because The Victory of Reason guy argues that too, and I think he's wrong in how he interprets it) between decentralization fueling Protestantism and Protestantism fueling representative government. It's self-catalyzing, the two play off each other.

But I was sloppy in my speech saying "decentralized." I was mixing up decentralized and representative, and those really aren't the same. I think of the latter as "decentralized" because you have decision-making represent a broader swath of society, but you're right, a feudal monarchy would be more decentralized than some sort of modern centralized republic.

What I mean with it all is, decentralized geopolitical systems fuel state competition. State competition ultimately fuels representative government. Both matter a lot, but moreso the latter. Protestantism is both a product of this but also a cause, it's the ideological side of this social transformation.

World history with political economy explaining why Eurasian land empire is toxic
The main source I get for my view on religion and development

General political economy (why does representative government matter?)
 
Last edited:
'Hellenistic philosophical traditions'
Hence, 'derived from', not 'total and absolute replication of'.
Christianity, somewhat in contradiction to the pagan world around it, believed that the world had a rational order.
Disagree, maybe the case for the average moron, but the average Christian moron also believed in superstitious nonsense. The traditions derived from Pythagoreanism all believed in an absolutely rational universe, where the very bones of the physical world were numbers themselves. Christianity should be taken as spreading and popularizing these previously Mystery exclusive elements instead, but then the credit lies with Pythagoras first and foremost. Further, lying it at the feet of Christianity deprives the obvious truth that it was EUROPEANS who did the science, not Christianity, because Ethiopia sure as hell wasn't a hotbed of social and intellectual advancement, despite having many of the same forces as in Europe.
 
Hence, 'derived from', not 'total and absolute replication of'.
Well, yeah, I'm not disputing that it ultimately comes from the Greeks, but there is more to it than just that change.

Disagree, maybe the case for the average moron, but the average Christian moron also believed in superstitious nonsense.
Who the fuck cares? It isn't the average dingbat out there doing scientific research or writing treatises.

I was actually musing about this the other day, I didn't feel like I "got" any of this stuff on a deeper level until real recently, and a big part of it was the liberation of realizing that literalism is quite likely the wrong way to interpret the religion. Like, St. Augustine himself thought that Young Earth Creationism was bullshit. Growing up in the culture that I did, but unchurched, I soaked up the cultural attitude that more literalist/fundamentalist interpretations tend to be the "intended" message, so if somebody goes tampering in it, looking for metaphors, it's just bullshit. Just like you can be a pacifist Muslim, but you'd just be practicing Islam the wrong/unintended way.

Then I realize that so much of this stuff makes way more sense if you take it as allegory, then realize that it probably WAS meant to be poetic allegory, then go digging and find out that that's what the early theologians themselves thought.

But you can have something like, for example and related to the topic, the Catholic Church that is at once capable of the heights of intellectual achievement and then complete, pagan nonsense (my all-time favorite being the necklace you wear to not go to Hell when you die) because it has the benefit of near two thousand years of scholarship but mostly studied by a small caste while the folk practice of it was focused on making the crops grow or the rain fall.

The traditions derived from Pythagoreanism all believed in an absolutely rational universe,
They also believed you shouldn't eat beans because they're little people (speaking of superstitious nonsense).

where the very bones of the physical world were numbers themselves. Christianity should be taken as spreading and popularizing these previously Mystery exclusive elements instead, but then the credit lies with Pythagoras first and foremost.
Well, I suppose I'd have to revisit that. Maybe the book I read didn't go into it.
Is this Pythagoreanism anything like positivism? Because as I understand, positivism was disproven by Godel.

Further, lying it at the feet of Christianity deprives the obvious truth that it was EUROPEANS who did the science, not Christianity, because Ethiopia sure as hell wasn't a hotbed of social and intellectual advancement, despite having many of the same forces as in Europe.
I've never known the Vikings, Gauls, ancient Slavic man or any other of these White cavebeasts to have done anything useful. It's Greco-Roman culture that's the break, then Christianized Northern Europe. Since the Greco-Romans never, to my knowledge, left a big impact on the Nordic peoples racially or culturally - except filtered through the Church - I don't see what they have in common as a European people besides... the Church. Being Christian.

Ethiopia is also Orthodox (the branch of Christianity that went full-in on mysticism instead of scholasticism) and is isolated at the ass-end of Africa up a giant plateau. It's even, in its own little corner of the world, a hegemonic land empire. (The Victory of Reason book talks about this, and believe me, it doesn't make me happy, because I actually really like the Orthodox mysticism. Between it and some of the other books I linked, it makes sense that Russia turned out so fucked up and the Eastern Romans, if they'd held on longer, would have been no different than Russia or the Ottomans. Shit, the Eastern Romans were even totalitarian. China in Europe.)

You don't have to have a Grand Theory of Everything that can fit every scenario; there can be more than one reason things happened, especially locally. Why didn't Christianity create Wakanda? Because Wakanda had a lot of other things fucked up about it.

What are the other forces on Ethiopia similar to Europe? To me it looks very different, almost analogous to Japan in how it's kind of an isolated civilization that's a satellite or something bigger and better nearby (China/the Middle East respectively). But you may well know more than me.
 
They also believed you shouldn't eat beans because they're little people (speaking of superstitious nonsense).
Actually, we have no idea what the abstention from beans was about. There are plenty of theories, even during the time they were active, but no one outside their order knew, and they weren't willing to explain it. My preferred theory is that beans were associated with democracy via voting by placing black or white beans into a bowl to cast votes, as it lines up with Pythagoras's blistering hatred of democracy.
What are the other forces on Ethiopia similar to Europe?
Large diverse area with a great deal of highly defensible terrain, feudal rule, monasticism, and contact with advanced and more primitive outside cultures. The point being that it is entirely a racial cause, and cannot be attributed to a religion as the primary reason.

As for why the Roman world didn't do much in the way of technological advancement, I have made my stance clear, either here or in the Historian thread, I attribute it largely to the ubiquity of slavery. The reduction of slavery brought on by feudalism and the reduction of feudalism by centralizing power in the Early Modern Period was a major driver in advancement in Europe, which to bring it back to the ACTUAL GAME, I hope is represented well, by Free Subjects giving better research or something to that degree, because slavery and serfdom are really toxic influences on a civilization's dynamism.
 
Last edited:
Actually, we have no idea what the abstention from beans was about. There are plenty of theories, even during the time they were active, but no one outside their order knew, and they weren't willing to explain it. My preferred theory is that beans were associated with democracy via voting by placing black or white beans into a bowl to cast votes, as it lines up with Pythagoras's blistering hatred of democracy.

Large diverse area with a great deal of highly defensible terrain, feudal rule, monasticism, and contact with advanced and more primitive outside cultures. The point being that it is entirely a racial cause, and cannot be attributed to a religion as the primary reason.
Thank you for your reply. That's a thoughtful set of similarities, worth me chewing on.


I'll offer you a bone. I'm not a human biodiversity/scientific racism/racial realist guy. Now, I'm not wholly opposed to it either. I believe that it's actually an indefensible dogma to reject it out of hand; if behavior is even in part hereditary than some portion of it MUST be racial in character since races are just massive extended families. I just believe t's not a large enough factor to be the primary determinant of civilization's fates.

But suppose I buy into it that Africans are uniquely backwards. Then all this tells us is that Africa's specially fucked up and that's why everything that comes from it seemed cursed. It's something I doubt all the time, just for how uniquely, perversely, fucked that continent seems to be. It still doesn't get us why the Norse didn't build gymnasia or why civilization began in river valleys that are complete hellholes now. It doesn't make much sense of how the American Indian was such a laggard in establishing civilization, but the moment he came up with it he was already building clever constitutional federal republics (Iroquois), establishing empires larger than Rome without the assistance of writing (Inca) or massive million-man cities fed by aqueducts and built on principles of symmetry and incredible feats of astronomy (Mesoamerica).

To me it looks like particular peoples just aren't especially slick, but they develop ideas for a reason and some of these ideas have a way of paying off in unexpected and huge ways. Say we assume it's all just about being Greco-Roman. Why didn't the Muslims successfully maintain Hellenistic culture (it declined with their shrinking Christian population)? Why didn't Greco-Roman ways of thinking spread to other cultures? I had to write this college paper once on geometry, none of the things I found was that Jesuits used the White Man's Mathematics as a way to try to proselytize to Chinese. If they could convince the Chinaman that their math worked, AND that the math working was SOMEHOW tied to their approach to theology, then Jesus could slay Buddha. Didn't work, but in the minds of the Church itself the Greek way of thinking was intimately tied to how they thought about their own faith.
 
[citation needed] Far more evidence for it being a European phenomenon derived from Hellenistic philosophical traditions like that of Plato and Aristotle, especially because whenever those two were taken as a major influence, like during the Islamic Golden Age, science and learning suddenly starts advancing really quickly.
Where Christianity factors in is science being a Christian project
This is a huge subject with a ton of branches to start tackling. It can never really be pinned down to a single factor, not entirely, but we have our preferences. Your mention of Aristotle reminded me of the time the Chinese circulated the idea that he was never real.
1757184410234.webp
The Chinese had a school of thought called Mohism that appeared around the same time as Confucianism and Daoism that was in many ways similar to the ideas of Aristotle (including a school of logic that could have had them on a similar, European trajectory). It only survives in fragments because when the Qin dynasty took over, they destroyed anything that wasn't abject totalitarianism (Legalism), hierarchy and authority worship (Confucianism), and relatively worthless mysticism (Daoism). Through most of their history, the Chinese have made great things, but destroyed them when the new dynasty takes over, and was so preoccupied with remaining stable that the status quo was prime and true innovation and new fields of philosophy were basically quashed in order to maintain social stability. China normalised destroying parts of its past to maintain the present, and effectively slowed their progress into the future. Whilst this generally represents why China experienced slower technological progress and social reform compared to the West, it also provides an important factor (one amongst many it can't be overstated) to compare between different parts of the world.

In Europe and the Middle East, despite the occasional bouts of iconoclasm and whatnot, texts and works were still preserved in some capacity and a great deal of time was spent considering and pouring over them. Despite the presence of orthodoxy and what you've heard of burnt heretics and the like, logic and reason were still integral to both philosophy and theology and would remain so for centuries. Natural theology essentially categorises the co-existence of faith and logic seen in people like Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas, who both tried to use the latter (logic) to assert justification for the former (faith) – though not universal some Greek philosophers did veer into the concept of a divine being greater than the rest, so it probably explains why their musings were so easily transferred over to Christian thinkers.

Though NT is shunned today by the religious in favour of Fideism (In the context of how NT influenced George Lematre and Darwin? Pretty understandable), the Catholic Church still considered the logical existence of God rather important. They were included in the Summa Theologica in the form of Aquinas' Five Ways. And in those instances where they just burnt people? The person had to argue their perspective and the ones carrying out the punishment had to counter-argue why they were wrong. Fides quaerens intellectum; faith seeking understanding. First believe, then understand – this was the relationship between faith and logic for the time period pre-Renaissance.

And this is just me touching on the theological/religious side of things of one part in one aspect of European history.

"Standing on the shoulder's of giants," is pretty emblematic to me of how Europe managed to surpass other parts of the world. It encompasses a lot of different things so it's admittedly a copout, but I think it generally wraps up why Europeans leapt over everyone else with a nice neat bow. To facilitate it you'd need a bare minimum a writing system to preserve ideas whilst not being inhibited by some cultural/philosophical practice. If you wanted to attribute it specifically to Christianity, the major component is the fact it's monotheist which is where the Greeks tended to end up, though theirs was more akin to monolatry (multiple gods, but one supreme god). Considering the machinations of a single deity whilst also trying to prove he exists is far less mentally taxing and makes it viable for exploration. If you really wanted to, you could put it on the fact the Europe's faiths had a definitive, physical reality that was created through direct action rather than being a "manifestation" or created instantly. One trend I've noticed – and I haven't seen every religion's creation story so no definitive statements – is that European faiths have the world created or formed in a sequence (individual gods creating individual components, or the single capital-G God making it over the course of days) whereas in Hinduism, the Earth was already formed whole it just had to be split from the sky and heavens. Since we can see the world is made of hand-crafted (relatively speaking) components, then we can consider those components, which helps the development of existentialism – like Plato's Theory of Forms.

Oral tradition was a thing in some places (North America, India, Steppe Nomads, etcetera), but you could probably come up with reasons on the spot why that's not as good as written word. A basic combo of "no writing system" + "no tradition of logic/introspection" are two major ones that explain why a lot of the world remained behind. Whilst you could consider biological and inherent aspects that had some part to play, "no written language" is easier to point out the direct cause/effect of. Contrived example of how biology could (possibly) factor into development/unfiltered-schizophrenia: East Asians largely have no body odour, and have less tolerance for lactose. The latter contributed to the raising of less cattle in favour of pigs, and the former lead to less impetus for potent soaps like in Europe. Pig fat isn't as good for soap-making as beef tallow, hence why Chinese soap was primarily plant-based and wouldn't make use of animal fat until into the modern era. European soaps, primarily made from animal fat, produces the by-product of Glycerol, which when mixed with nitric and sulphuric acid, produces Nitroglycerin. Nitroglycerin leads to dynamite and both of these products were invaluable in the development of infrastructure and resource gathering which contributed to the second industrial revolution.
TLDR: Many East Asians don't have body odour -> no soap priority -> no familiarity with its components (glycerine) -> no explosives (nitro-glycerine).

India: No written history pre-Islamic/Persian conquests in the North. We only know vague what happened here due to the Chinese or neighbouring Persians picking up things here and there. Alexander the Great's brief foray into the sub-continent did more to preserve Indian history than the Indians until they began to bother with keeping records.

Meso-America: They had Quipu in the region, but that was only good for numerical records. The Mayans had a script of sorts, the sort that usually preceded development into more sophisticated forms (Chinese characters evolved from religious inscriptions; it's likely we would've seen the same development with the Norse/"Vikings" with their runes before they took on the Latin alphabet) and the Aztecs had something similar.

Sub-Saharan Africa: Whilst it'd be easy just to write them off using the same reasoning as India basically – no writing system, they actually might show what would have happened had the Indians did develop one. It wasn't just a writing system that held back the Chinese, it was their modes of thought, and one of those modes (Daoism) didn't contribute to positively to their development as far as I can tell. Ethiopia did have a script, but their domestic situation was pretty much fucked thanks to the rapid spread of Islam, and the prevalence of mysticism meant that one couldn't look for knowledge, you had to be granted it through prayer, contemplation, and surrender of the self. The other civilisation of note, Mali, didn't write its histories down either and we only have Arabs and Portuguese sources for info.

Everywhere else: Same trend. No writing system, heavily reliance on oral histories (Australian aboriginals, Native Americans, etcetera); no tradition of introspection or existentialism.

I don't know how to "TLDR" this other than: You're both right. Christianity had its own part to play but the influence of Greek philosophy is undeniable. I'd only contribute that both those aspects were reliant on the fact we actually wrote shit like that down and spend time pondering it. Greek philosophies and the logic they utilised got re-introduced into Europe around the turn of the millennium and it meshed well with Christianity, but why the Christians weren't as eager to destroy the past like the Chinese were is also a factor in of itself because if they were all simply destroyed then there'd be nothing to help mesh logic with faith, and then logic and all its benefits and flaws wouldn't have influenced the European trajectory.

And that's still just one part of it all.
 
I don't think I can really top >IMPLYING's post and RegiUGH made most of the points I would have made anyways, but I do feel the need to make a few points I saw that might have fallen through the cracks. I should preface all of this by saying I think this sort of historical discussion is good for Paradox games - regardless of our interpretations we all want a more authentic stimulation of the period and setting these games are made in, nevermind that many people do play these games to learn something new about history. These sorts of talks do tend to inspire modders and people wanting to make their own games on how to model those sorts of things within in the limitations of a game engine - moreover, it's good for demonstrating what Paradox might be missing. All that said, :politisperg:time (doing it so you don't have to @Mound Dweller)
As for why the Roman world didn't do much in the way of technological advancement, I have made my stance clear, either here or in the Historian thread, I attribute it largely to the ubiquity of slavery.
This is contradicted by holding up the Islamic Golden Age for its technological progress - slavery has been more ubiquitous in every Islamic civilization than it was in Rome, and the Islamic Golden Age had more technological achievements attributable to it than Rome. For that matter, why would the ubiquity of slavery constrain Rome but not Greece? Slavery was as ubiquitous in the Greece of Plato as it was in the Rome of Varro.

I believe slavery hinders the innovation and proliferation of technical advancements, but ultimately that it's not a barrier to the theoretical, which mathematics fundamentally is - and also why the Islamic world could still produce some mathematical innovations even as its medical science dried up, or how the Mesoamericans could finesse their way into their calendars but not into alloying metals. Ultimately Pythagorean theorems don't help you make (or appreciate) a better horseshoe. Meanwhile I think the handful of technical advancements the Greeks did make could be best explained with Ugh's theory about geopolitical systems fueling competition with how the Greek world, pre and post-Alexander, was divided into constantly-competing poleis.

This does circle back earlier to my complaints about how Paradox models slavery. Yeah, it impedes the classical liberal conception of material progress, but it does it in ways that aren't immediately apparent, not because you can't tax slaves and they can only work on plantations.
The reduction of slavery brought on by feudalism
This is backwards. 'Feudalism' - as amorphous as that term is - did not emerge from the ether and the Germanic tribes who conquered the Western Empire had no qualms with slavery. It was only because the Latin Church repeatedly issued prohibitions on enslaving Christians specifically because it was viewed as sinful that slavery became moribund in Frankish Europe and feudalism began to emerge to replace it. Slavery could and did coexist with feudal analogues, as it did first in the Greek Empire and later in the Ottoman Empire.
My argument has nothing to do with the Protestant work ethic.
Pardon my usage of the colloquialism, I couldn't think of a better way to say something intrinsic to Protestant attitudes.
I should specify Calvinism, really. There's a clear trend where the more productive, happy, healthy early modern societies are the Calvinist ones: Swizterland, Netherlands, Scotland, New England, and to some extent England where the Church of England is always in a tension with Calvinism.
Productive and healthy perhaps, but I'm always peevish about trying to quantify 'happiness', especially in history. Not simply because trying to set the parameters of what dead people found to be gratifying in their lives is a nearly impossible project (and frankly a bit ghoulish) that will vary based on whoever is measuring it, but because different cultures value different things.

For example, in a point relevant to EU, I remember once reading somewhere a thesis that tried to explain colonial settlement in terms of happiness; that the United Provinces' pluralism and capitalism meant its citizens were happier and had less incentive to find success in their New World colonies compared to Britain, which was just such a miserable place to live in that people had to go to the colonies to have opportunities to advance (lmao). Were this happiness theory true then Spain and France should have produced even larger colonial waves than England, with their societal systems being even more removed from the Netherlands than England's - which of course they didn't.
like, Germany in general is just a backwards shithole of Europe outside of Austria
Germany had the highest concentration of printing presses in renaissance Europe. If anything, given your perspective on how geopolitical competition fuels material advancement I'd figure you'd herald it as the center of innovation given the absurd number of statelets it held.
If they could convince the Chinaman that their math worked, AND that the math working was SOMEHOW tied to their approach to theology, then Jesus could slay Buddha. Didn't work, but in the minds of the Church itself the Greek way of thinking was intimately tied to how they thought about their own faith.
I should caveat this by saying it didn't work not because the idea was wrong (it convinced some of the leading Mandarins of Ricci's day), but because fundamentally the Chinese cared more about superstition than the math; the breaking point was the Rites controversy. I think probably my favorite anecdote about the Jesuit missions in China is when they first presented the map of the world the Chinese rejected; not because they believed it was mathematically incorrect, but because China was not in the center of the map, and they couldn't believe that Chinese civilization was not at the cosmological (and thus geographic) center of the world.

It's also for stuff like this that I get really annoyed whenever I see scenarios in Paradox games/mods (DoD is especially guilty of this) about the Chinese being a colonial empire. The Ming were so obscurantist when they issued their restrictive naval laws they went so far as to burn schematics for ships - of course it didn't work, it created the Wako as a phenomena that plagued them for centuries - but Confucianist China was just temperamentally incapable of conceiving of things outside of it. Why would it need, let alone want, to set up colonies? It's also why Paradox games have always struggled to simulate China - the mentality of a Chinese empire is just fundamentally antithetical to the mentality, let alone reasons, of someone playing a 4x/grand strategy.
Greek philosophies and the logic they utilised got re-introduced into Europe around the turn of the millennium
This is a nitpick, but I do feel the need to say that, while this is a very popular and long-established trope, it's also factually incorrect; western Europe never 'lost' Greek philosophy. We know, for example, it was still being discussed in the immediate aftermath of the Western Empire's fall because much of Boethius' career in Theodoric's service was translating Plato and Aristotle while Isidore of Seville referenced the later in Etymologies, and centuries later that not only did Alcuin of York's library contain works from Aristotle, but that the most prominent western Neoplatonist was John Scotus Eriugena - a monk from Ireland, a place that had never known a roman legionnaire.

It's fair to say that unfiltered access to the full corpus of works of Greek philosophers that might have been preserved under Rome was cut off, but in the interest of sparing the thread a longer screed about how I think Greco-Roman and European (Frankish) civilizations were fundamentally separate I'll just cap it off by saying that the distinction between availability and awareness is something most people don't care to make, let alone are cognizant of.
 
Germany had the highest concentration of printing presses in renaissance Europe. If anything, given your perspective on how geopolitical competition fuels material advancement I'd figure you'd herald it as the center of innovation given the absurd number of statelets it held.
I had a horrible brain fart and completely forgot that and how I normally beat my chest about it.

I can't explain Lutheranism in my model (yet). It's a national church with an episcopal polity, so it's basically like Orthodoxy and would have similar outcomes, but it's also Western and does have the Protestant work ethic to the extent that people still believe in that (it's been a whipping boy for a while). As I understand Scandinavia being a nice place comes more from it having never had feudalism in the first place. Germany is an odd and complex place, but my impression is that, if nothing else, most of Catholic Austria-Hungary was just a complete shithole, Lutheran Prussia was a shithole, but Northwest Protestant Germany was the rich corner. That could be wrong.

By the way, you and others might appreciate that I started reading Rothbard's Progressive Era, where he just wails on Protestants being the cause of all the evil in the US because they're so anti-freedom compared to the virtuous, freedom-loving Catholics. Rohtbard is a Jew and a polemicist and I'm not impressed so far, but you know, I'm trying, I'm hearing him out.

Productive and healthy perhaps, but I'm always peevish about trying to quantify 'happiness', especially in history. Not simply because trying to set the parameters of what dead people found to be gratifying in their lives is a nearly impossible project (and frankly a bit ghoulish) that will vary based on whoever is measuring it, but because different cultures value different things.
You're right that I'm projecting some assumptions about how they would feel based on how I feel about it. My impression is still that those countries had better morale, more stable politics. Even Dickensian England didn't start whacking their leaders left and right like Revolutionary France.

I should caveat this by saying it didn't work not because the idea was wrong (it convinced some of the leading Mandarins of Ricci's day), but because fundamentally the Chinese cared more about superstition than the math; the breaking point was the Rites controversy. I think probably my favorite anecdote about the Jesuit missions in China is when they first presented the map of the world the Chinese rejected; not because they believed it was mathematically incorrect, but because China was not in the center of the map, and they couldn't believe that Chinese civilization was not at the cosmological (and thus geographic) center of the world.
Nobody has ever logicked anybody (normal) into changing their religion.

For the rest of you that don't know, because I don't think I wrote about this part, the Chinese way of doing math - which was everyone's way - was that things work because they always have. They did not have a concept of formal mathematical proof in the sense that we do. It's something that has to be explicitly taught: some stranger off the street won't understand what you mean by proof (but every time I use the formula it works?!?!?!!?!?!). This works as a brute force method only up to a certain point.

It's also for stuff like this that I get really annoyed whenever I see scenarios in Paradox games/mods (DoD is especially guilty of this) about the Chinese being a colonial empire. The Ming were so obscurantist when they issued their restrictive naval laws they went so far as to burn schematics for ships - of course it didn't work, it created the Wako as a phenomena that plagued them for centuries - but Confucianist China was just temperamentally incapable of conceiving of things outside of it. Why would it need, let alone want, to set up colonies? It's also why Paradox games have always struggled to simulate China - the mentality of a Chinese empire is just fundamentally antithetical to the mentality, let alone reasons, of someone playing a 4x/grand strategy.
China is a real problem. I always tend to want more historical simulation but I've come to appreciate more and more the value of knowing when to say "no," and China is one of those things that seems to be impossible to balance properly. At least with Japan you could always frame it as that maybe in an alternate world they get Britted instead of India during Sengoku (assuming they had something people wanted). But China is just a giant mess because it's hard for a game to capture everything fucked up about their way of life and mentality, much less when put into a player's hands. This is why if they ever make Empire II: Total War I want it to have the whole world except, specifically, for the African interior, China and Japan. No good can come from including it.
 
This is why if they ever make Empire II: Total War I want it to have the whole world except, specifically, for the African interior, China and Japan. No good can come from including it.
In that case specifically I think China's map presence should be restricted to the historical treaty ports on the coast with the actual country itself being terra obscura and your interaction with it should be through events and unique mechanics that require you to play a balancing act between milking them for all their worth and not having them send a 5-stack at Canton every 10 turns.

Still playable in custom battles though, you sharn't be too cruel with it.
 
A basic examination of Rome's dearth of technological advancements

People really overhype the Roman era. Europe became great because of the middle ages. The developments in agriculture, first universities, and plague making peasants richer laid the foundations for modern economies and early capitalism. During the Roman era huge chunks of Europe were literally just unfarmed because they did not have the plows to do it and because grain from Egypt made it unnecessary. The whole feudalism thing is seen as backwards, but thats the beginning of private property rights becoming sacred.

Regardless, I dislike the way Eu4 does technology. Really large centralized and powerful empires can fund really big houses of learning and stuff, but that is not what makes a society advanced. The Romans, Ming and scholars of the Caliphates invented alot of stuff and wrote alot of cool theory, but it never distilled down to society.

The rail is the best example of this. The romans had tracks to push around stuff like coal, but nobody was ever decided to add steam to the carts despite the steam engine existing. However, through the existence of patents, private land ownership, stock markets and widespread literacy (that happened through a culture slowly promoting literacy as a way to godliness) people started to do this in rural Britain - a country that was not particularly that rich and powerful.

Of course, you should only expect so much from a game. Having mechanics that are rewarding and challenging is far more important.
 
Last edited:
The rail is the best example of this. The romans had tracks to push stuff around stuff like coal, but nobody was ever decided to add steam to the carts despite the steam engine existing.
That was because they lacked the necessary metallurgical technology to take advantage of the principles at work. You could only have had the steam engine do work with the introduction of mass steel production.
 
One thing I would like to see implemented potentially in a future DLC is how Poland (or maybe even make this dynamic and a consequence of taking measures against it) was effected by not being as heavily impacted by the black death as other countries, since it led to serfdom never ending as the nobility still had plenty of peasants to rule over and instead it became more oppressive over the centuries whereas other countries' societies reformed. In EU4 it was easy to ignore the nobility and blob hard, then survive the disaster once absolutism hit.
 
One thing I would like to see implemented potentially in a future DLC is how Poland (or maybe even make this dynamic and a consequence of taking measures against it) was effected by not being as heavily impacted by the black death as other countries, since it led to serfdom never ending as the nobility still had plenty of peasants to rule over and instead it became more oppressive over the centuries whereas other countries' societies reformed. In EU4 it was easy to ignore the nobility and blob hard, then survive the disaster once absolutism hit.
Elective monarchies in general need to be expanded. Poland, Hungary, the HRE and Venice were all elective monarchies and all manifested that in wildly different ways, most of which wound up being incredibly detrimental to the health of their societies despite offering some of the best possible governing institutions on paper.
 
China and India should have a low trust modifier that reduces their production and trade by 90%

 
@Ughubughughughughughghlug

I hate to derail the thread again over that admittedly fascinating discussion, but what do you make of my own pet theory of the USA being an eternal hegemonic land empire like Rome and China.... but also obviously having the characteristics of Christianity, and one supposes, Britain as a direct descendant of it.. or perhaps more like France exporting its system (American-style democracy and culture) but no longer settling/colonizing areas outside its borders? Also arguably federalism as a potential unique social safety valve against despotism (effective or not).

IE, how does 'murrica fit into your theory here.
 
Back
Top Bottom