Aristocratic Free Subjects and Plutocratic Serfs

[Setsuna]

Whereas the other slider settings are independent of each other, these two positions both feel like they have some overlap. While the slider settings allow for such combinations, I'm not really sure what a country with these settings would be like in the real world. Are there any real life examples?

I guess the former is easier to imagine than the latter, like Russia (Heavily Serfdom) vs. early 16th Century England (Relatively free in comparison.)

In fact the only thing I can think of for a Plutocratic system that has Serfdom is an example outside the time frame of the game, and probably a bit of a technicality. I would say that the PRC have no nobility, but they have prevented people from moving to cities, in effect forcing them to remain low paid farmers and tying them to their lands.

 

[Pewt]

Although finding such examples might be more difficult, I also find that those two sliders do tend to go hand in hand. I rarely find myself with Aristocracy+Free Subjects or Plutocracy+Serfdom (well, I never go Plutocracy+Serfdom, since that doesn't make much sense).

 

[Tuominen]

plutocracy+serfdom sound like uncontrolled capitalism where money grants you same powers as nobility did in past. Nobility of wealt, bit like we have these day where workforce feels like commodity and is created such.

 

[unmerged(70580)]

I do use the Aristocracy + Free Subjects combo ... would prefer not to go Aristocratic, but having the diplomats from Aristocratic is just too important. I go FS as it helps with tech costs & as I go Protestant at the reformation.

I agree though, both that combos seem a bit odd.

 

[safferli]

You'll have a hard time keeping Aristocracy and Free Subjects with all the random events that will come...

 

[DrLulz]

I think the problem is that you take to narrow a view of what plutocracy means. Many absolutist kingdoms would be quite plutocratic in the sense that the power has moved from the nobility to the king and the bürgers and many of these sytems actually came about as an alliance between the king and the bürgers.

This means large autonomy for the merchant class of the cities. However that doesn't prevent the peasantry from being bound to the soil "Stavnsbaand" in my native Denmark, and lacking various other rigths.

If you think of one of the events associated with plutocracy "Sale of Titles" this event signifies that in a plutocratic system you can buy nobility. This has huge implications for the merchant elite, but not for the peasants.

So I think that it's quite easy to unite plutocracy with serfdom, and I think Denmark between the late 17th century and the disbanding of the "Stavnsbaand" in the late 18th century is a fine example of this.

 

[Konstantinos XV]

I often have aristocracy with free subjects too. Just a matter of starting position and priorities really. It probably simply means that I tend to rely on established families for government but doesn't mean I can't cut their rights. Afaik, both Prussia and Russia simply enlisted aristocracy into state machinery to subdue the unruly boyars with all their crazy ideas of golden freedoms (examples of enrolled aristocracy not freedom of course).

I believe that the whole free subjects <-> serfdom slider is much more superficial in this regard. (Particularly with its huge influence on research speed.)

 

[TeutoDraeger]

I currently have a plutocratic yet serf-heavy, free-trading Papal State.

Almost exactly as described above, I've established a capitalist market (under the pope) that rewards businessmen and merchants but oppresses the working masses with low wages and few rights.

 

[elbasto]

Plutocratic + Serfs = Modern day China.
Aristocracy + Free Trade = Modern day Chile.

 

[unmerged(64629)]

Modern Day China is moving toward Free Subject, although reluctantly. It's not without its hiccups but the trend is there.

 

[elbasto]

Modern Day China is moving toward Free Subject, although reluctantly. It's not without its hiccups but the trend is there.

It certainly is.

An amazing trend is that, in the long term, there isn't a single nation on earth that could keep a functioning democracy without a market economy (which doesn't mean that social security services aren't there).

Of course, this seems to be a necessary but not sufficient condition, since there are free market nations that aren't democratic, some other examples are Singapore, Malaysia, the Arab countries (although oil seems to destroy scarcity and therefore most economic studies aren't really relevant since the goal of economics is to deal with scarcity).

 

[safferli]

I know it's tempting, but please leave current politics out of this thread. You can use the OT, or the History forums for those discussions.

 

[unmerged(276930)]

Indentured servtitude is a form of serfdom that was popular in the United States for much of the century after the ACW to keep the former slaves down. While at the same time all the white, Christian men were supposed to be equal before law, thus we have a serfdom + plutocratic society.

Aristocratic + free subject nation would be the various French Empires and Monarchies after the Revolution. The emperor/king is of the French instead of France, and when commoners enter national level politics they were usually awarded with titles of nobility, thus making them members of the aristocracy.

 

[elbasto]

I know it's tempting, but please leave current politics out of this thread. You can use the OT, or the History forums for those discussions.

Acknowledged.

 

[unmerged(297342)]

Indentured servtitude is a form of serfdom that was popular in the United States for much of the century after the ACW to keep the former slaves down. While at the same time all the white, Christian men were supposed to be equal before law, thus we have a serfdom + plutocratic society.

Aristocratic + free subject nation would be the various French Empires and Monarchies after the Revolution. The emperor/king is of the French instead of France, and when commoners enter national level politics they were usually awarded with titles of nobility, thus making them members of the aristocracy.

Commoners - more specifically, the merchant classes and upper-middle class professionals such as lawyers that could afford to enter political office - taking titles is not aristocracy.

A better example would probably be Prussia / the German Empire.

 

[unmerged(276930)]

Commoners - more specifically, the merchant classes and upper-middle class professionals such as lawyers that could afford to enter political office - taking titles is not aristocracy.

A better example would probably be Prussia / the German Empire.

But then why is Ming, with its imperial exam system of government official selection, is deep off the aristocratic side of the slider at the start of the Grand Campaign? Most of its mandarins were commoners who scored high in the examination, and have been for 800 years.


Edit: Actually, regular imperial examination was restarted by Yongle Emperor after he usurped the throne, so 3 years after the start of Grand Campaign. Many of the prime ministers were commoners before they aced the exams and enter the mandarin class. Even though the emperor is hereditary, by your example of German Empire being plutocratic, then Ming should also be on that side of the slider after 1402. Besides, due to historical Ming's low tax, laissez faire economic policy, by mid 1500's its actual economy was dominated by big merchant families, with the imperial government on the brink of financial extinction and can no longer afford to maintain the high cavalry ratio of its earlier armies. That situation appears to me to fit the merchant and trade bonuses of plutocracy slider and also its cavalry cost malus better than what its slider position is in game.

 

[Setsuna]

Indentured servtitude is a form of serfdom that was popular in the United States for much of the century after the ACW to keep the former slaves down. While at the same time all the white, Christian men were supposed to be equal before law, thus we have a serfdom + plutocratic society.

Hmm, but then you have Victoria (Not sure about V2) and southern land owners were represented as Aristocrat POPs.

Although since in either case it's outside of the time scale I'm not sure how you'd translate it into EU3. It'd be pretty hard to justify making the United States on the Serfdom end of the scale when even Great Britain and Revolutionary France are on the Free Subjects side, solely based on slavery. And both of them too didn't end their respective slave trades until again outside the time frame of the game. And if you tried to argue that all of them should be considered Serfdoms, then just who would qualify for Free Subjects?

 

[unmerged(276930)]

How about Italian city states?

 

[Trin Tragula]

Aristocracy + Free Subjects seems to be mostly be about the east/west Elbe divide to me. IE eastern europe gets higher serfdom but there can be nations with strong aristocracy in both east and west.
One nation with unusually high free subjects and unusually high free subjects to match would be Sweden I'd say, with a strong aristocracy but unusually good rights for the peasantry as well (ability to take your noble to court and win, appeals, their own fourth estate in the parliament etc).
Not sure what nation would have max aristocracy + max free subjects in the game but it doesn't sound impossible.

 

[unmerged(106498)]

Serfdom vs Free subjects I think is more than just a matter of law and legal status. It's also about culture, and individualism. It's very hard to have free market without free subjects, because in a free market system, the workers fail or succeed by their own efforts and cleverness to climb out of the stable cleaner level job, and thus have cause to work harder and smarter. In a Serfdom type environment, the land owner has much more say in how the peasants live then they themselves do. Free trade isn't the same as free market, although they do tend to go together, but you can have free trade of goods between merchants and yet still have slaves/indentured servants/prison work camps/peasant serfs.