China, the workshop of the world

[Fawr]

http://books.google.com/books?id=tA...MQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Guo Songyi grain&f=false
^That references Guo Songyi's numbers some. His numbers show that late Ming, to Qing was not once, or twice, but thrice subsistence level.

A shi of rice is a volume measurement which weights 175-195 pounds. Your article says that the best guess for the annual consumption was 3.6 market shi per person per year. Which comes to 630-702 pounds. From your quote above Perkins said that the Chinese ate 285Kg (627 lb) of grains per person per year, which is just under the low end of Guo Songyi's range. That doesn't sound like a huge difference to me.

I've already answered that. There's a reason why we don't have many works like this to compare it against: Most people see them as too broad to provide anything historically relevant. Maddison's work often isn't challenged on a grand, all encompassing level. It's challenged on the ground, in certain places and periods. This is where it often shows its weaknesses. I listed a great number of them, but your reply was that Maddison had responded to these criticisms already. A response is not a refutation. If Maddison had been able to fully refute these historical criticisms, then I highly doubt that so many authors and scholars would still see Maddison's work as flawed, that so many alternative numbers for specific times and places would exist, and that references to his work would still need to remind the reader that these numbers should be approached with caution. As I said before, perhaps you should provide proof that Maddison's work is so widely accepted and reliable that it should be taken at face value. So far you've given vague assurances but haven't provided much to show that Maddison developed an indisputable and universal method.

Any historical game needs a base set of numbers to base it from. If you think you can come up with something better than Maddison then feel free to put them forward (with the reasons behind them). But if you think Maddison has the best numbers in the world then feel free to provide no other alternative.

 

[Dafool]

Any historical game needs a base set of numbers to base it from. If you think you can come up with something better than Maddison then feel free to put them forward (with the reasons behind them). But if you think Maddison has the best numbers in the world then feel free to provide no other alternative.

As I've said, you've failed to provide reasoning why Maddison's numbers should be used. I've provided plenty to reasons to doubt his numbers. You've provided no real reasoning to trust his numbers. Especially when it comes to the game, I fail to see any real reason to use his numbers as a basis. Bascially, going bak to what I said before, if you want to convince others that the criticisms of your favored source are null, then you need provide strong evidence of such, not ask for more and more criticisms.

 

[Sun_Wu]

A shi of rice is a volume measurement which weights 175-195 pounds. Your article says that the best guess for the annual consumption was 3.6 market shi per person per year. Which comes to 630-702 pounds. From your quote above Perkins said that the Chinese ate 285Kg (627 lb) of grains per person per year, which is just under the low end of Guo Songyi's range. That doesn't sound like a huge difference to me.



Any historical game needs a base set of numbers to base it from. If you think you can come up with something better than Maddison then feel free to put them forward (with the reasons behind them). But if you think Maddison has the best numbers in the world then feel free to provide no other alternative.

Actually Guo Songyi's numbers show 4200 kg per family of five meaning 840kg/capita which is slightly higher than 285kg/capita also keep in mind the enormous rate of cash crops grown and aquaculture which Perkins does no account for.

The numbers are from 清代赋役, 商贸及其他 and no, not just Yangtze delta.

 

[Fawr]

As I've said, you've failed to provide reasoning why Maddison's numbers should be used. I've provided plenty to reasons to doubt his numbers. You've provided no real reasoning to trust his numbers. Especially when it comes to the game, I fail to see any real reason to use his numbers as a basis. Bascially, going bak to what I said before, if you want to convince others that the criticisms of your favored source are null, then you need provide strong evidence of such, not ask for more and more criticisms.

If you aren't explaining what is behind your numbers then I'd place Maddison above you purely for that reason.

 

[Dafool]

If you aren't explaining what is behind your numbers then I'd place Maddison above you purely for that reason.

You're quite obviously dodging a point. Earlier I said: "There's a reason why we don't have many works like this to compare it against: Most people see them as too broad to provide anything historically relevant. Maddison's work often isn't challenged on a grand, all encompassing level. It's challenged on the ground, in certain places and periods." You've been provided with counterexamples by me and a few others. So far I've only seen you state "Maddison has responded to that." You haven't provided proof that Maddison's numbers are reliable enough to dispel the ample criticisms against them.

 

[Fryslan0109]

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that whenever one of these "X country should be more powerful/better represented" threads comes up, it is obvious that the poster is from said country X^)

I do agree China's power needs to be represented more realistically but the only way I can see that happening (and it won't) would be if many internal policy factors were introduced (which in geographically isolated and politically stagnant China would serve to "contain" them, preventing a massive Yellow Blob from becoming all too common in the East))

 

[Sun_Wu]

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that whenever one of these "X country should be more powerful/better represented" threads comes up, it is obvious that the poster is from said country X^)

I do agree China's power needs to be represented more realistically but the only way I can see that happening (and it won't) would be if many internal policy factors were introduced (which in geographically isolated and politically stagnant China would serve to "contain" them, preventing a massive Yellow Blob from becoming all too common in the East))

EU needs to have more internal matters for countries the size of China.

 

[Fawr]

You're quite obviously dodging a point. Earlier I said: "There's a reason why we don't have many works like this to compare it against: Most people see them as too broad to provide anything historically relevant. Maddison's work often isn't challenged on a grand, all encompassing level. It's challenged on the ground, in certain places and periods." You've been provided with counterexamples by me and a few others. So far I've only seen you state "Maddison has responded to that." You haven't provided proof that Maddison's numbers are reliable enough to dispel the ample criticisms against them.

The thing is that anyone suggesting that the game needs to change its economic/technological side to be more historically accurate is trying to do what you think it too hard for Maddison to do. If he can't do it then why would anyone else be able to?

 

[Dafool]

The thing is that anyone suggesting that the game needs to change its economic/technological side to be more historically accurate is trying to do what you think it too hard for Maddison to do. If he can't do it then why would anyone else be able to?

No. Fixing the economic or technological aspects of the game is not about translating a bunch of numbers. It's about finding an acceptable mix of history and gameplay. That is something we have to experience in the game and balance in turn.

 

[Andrelvis]

Then, a distinction must be made. You seem to be looking at Maddison's work as a historical piece first and foremost. I assure you that most historians would feel uneasy about that label. Things like political sciences and historical economics are often looked at with some contempt by historians, primarily because they often try to break things down into universals and rules that often have numerous exceptions and require serious reconciling to hold any truth. To me and great many others, scores of historians included, Maddison's would fall into category B, even if he isn't an amateur. A is taking actual history and drawing from it to make conclusions. Maddison didn't do that. He invented principles and then used them to analyze history.

As a historian, I can honestly say you are very much mistaken. You are confusing a particular school of History with how the field is dealt with as a whole (there are a plethora of historians who make use of quantification much like this)... in any case, the intelligent historian will try to make the most of the work that is being done in other disciplines, rather than snobbishly reject it.

 

[Dafool]

As a historian, I can honestly say you are very much mistaken. You are confusing a particular school of History with how the field is dealt with as a whole (there are a plethora of historians who make use of quantification much like this)... in any case, the intelligent historian will try to make the most of the work that is being done in other disciplines, rather than snobbishly reject it.

As a historian myself, I can say quite plainly that most historians avoid things like "universals" and "formulas" when studying history. Those are the tools of more theoretical fields like sociology and political sciences. That's not to say that they can't provide value or additional viewpoints when we're examining the past, but no historian worth their salt is going to side with a theoretical calculation when the historical record says something else. Maddison's numbers are rough calculations based off his own rules and formulas. My reluctance to see them as definitive is not snobbery as you put it, but instead a well established skepticism within the field of history.

 

[Andrelvis]

As a historian myself, I can say quite plainly that most historians avoid things like "universals" and "formulas" when studying history. Those are the tools of more theoretical fields like sociology and political sciences. That's not to say that they can't provide value or additional viewpoints when we're examining the past, but no historian worth their salt is going to side with a theoretical calculation when the historical record says something else. Maddison's numbers are rough calculations based off his own rules and formulas. My reluctance to see them as definitive is not snobbery as you put it, but instead a well established skepticism within the field of history.

It doesn't matter whether Maddison's numbers are definitive or not (almost nothing, in any field of knowledge, is definitive), what matters is whether they are the best we have available or not. Yes, quantification means loss of specificity. But there are things quantification does better, and things "deep" analysis of cases does better. But in games such as the ones Paradox makes, quantification tends to be more useful, since in them the variables tend to be common to all countries.

 

[Dafool]

It doesn't matter whether Maddison's numbers are definitive or not (almost nothing, in any field of knowledge, is definitive), what matters is whether they are the best we have available or not. Yes, quantification means loss of specificity. But there are things quantification does better, and things "deep" analysis of cases does better. But in games such as the ones Paradox makes, quantification tends to be more useful, since in them the variables tend to be common to all countries.

This is a fairly flawed approach. You're designating something as "the best" because no one has attempted to replicate it. In doing so, you're completely ignoring the quality of material in question and accepting it solely because it's the only such source. Gavin Menzies is the premier author on Chinese exploration of the New World. However, most historians would not say this qualifies him to be "the best" in his historical area. History isn't a subjective field where we can substitute guesses and numbers for actual knowledge. As far as the game goes, we do have variables and numbers, but these aren't of the same sort that Maddison gives us. In EU these numbers are a medium by which we improve gameplay and attempt to model history within the larger confines of the game. We don't have GDP or productivity in the game. We have vague things like "base tax" and "production efficiency". These aren't there to model real life statistics. They're there to allow us to model wealth as part of gameplay. Fixing China isn't about modeling a particular number, but instead about making sure that their income in the game allows them to act in a reasonably historic manner.

 

[Liquid Sky]

It also helps that the tool being used to play the game on deals in numbers. The colours the game uses comes from mixing three numbers. The sounds you hear come from numbers. If you want to see your 'real history' in the game, you are going to have to come up with a way to represent it, in numbers.

 

[Fawr]

Dafool, you are still missing the point. Many other people have made historical numbers. The game designers of EU3 produced an alternate set of numbers. Any modder who changed the economic numbers behind the game (eg tech group growth rates, province tax values, etc) for historical accuracy reasons also has produced an alternate set of numbers. Maddison has done a lot more research in this area than that sort of competition, and so I trust his numbers more.

However you are also confusing choices which are made to make the game historically accurate with choices which are made for gameplay reasons. Maddison has no relevence for decisions made for gameplay reasons. However he is the best source anyone here has found if you want to make parts of the game historically accurate.

The OP started this thread with a paragraph with some claims about what was historcially accurate in China.

 

[Andrelvis]

This is a fairly flawed approach. You're designating something as "the best" because no one has attempted to replicate it. In doing so, you're completely ignoring the quality of material in question and accepting it solely because it's the only such source. Gavin Menzies is the premier author on Chinese exploration of the New World. However, most historians would not say this qualifies him to be "the best" in his historical area. History isn't a subjective field where we can substitute guesses and numbers for actual knowledge.

The two simply aren't comparable in the sense that you are trying to do; quantification is a well-established research instrument in the social sciences in general, and history in particular, whereas Chinese New World exploration is a fringe and doubtful subject. Furthermore, academic estimates aren't "guesses"; if the scholar in question is competent, then they will have sound methodology behind them.

As far as the game goes, we do have variables and numbers, but these aren't of the same sort that Maddison gives us. In EU these numbers are a medium by which we improve gameplay and attempt to model history within the larger confines of the game. We don't have GDP or productivity in the game. We have vague things like "base tax" and "production efficiency". These aren't there to model real life statistics. They're there to allow us to model wealth as part of gameplay. Fixing China isn't about modeling a particular number, but instead about making sure that their income in the game allows them to act in a reasonably historic manner.

To some extent yes, but historical numbers go a long way towards giving a sense of the scale of the differences in the variables, and such.

 

[Dafool]

Dafool, you are still missing the point. Many other people have made historical numbers. The game designers of EU3 produced an alternate set of numbers. Any modder who changed the economic numbers behind the game (eg tech group growth rates, province tax values, etc) for historical accuracy reasons also has produced an alternate set of numbers. Maddison has done a lot more research in this area than that sort of competition, and so I trust his numbers more.

However you are also confusing choices which are made to make the game historically accurate with choices which are made for gameplay reasons. Maddison has no relevence for decisions made for gameplay reasons. However he is the best source anyone here has found if you want to make parts of the game historically accurate.

The OP started this thread with a paragraph with some claims about what was historcially accurate in China.

No, I'm not missing the point. You're pushing a point which I don't agree with: Maddison's numbers are a basis for making the game more accurate. They are not. As I've pointed out, they're already highly questionable when applied to actual history. Many historians dispute them. Your only argument for supporting them is that Maddison doesn't have much competition due to the broad range of his research. Now when we start looking at the actual game, there is no place to put in GDP. I can't mod the game to reflect that. I can however play with the variables until I find something allows China to perform at its historical level. That isn't about hitting a quantified target, it's about how accurately China's gameplay is. That can't be quantified.

The two simply aren't comparable in the sense that you are trying to do; quantification is a well-established research instrument in the social sciences in general, and history in particular, whereas Chinese New World exploration is a fringe and doubtful subject. Furthermore, academic estimates aren't "guesses"; if the scholar in question is competent, then they will have sound methodology behind them.

You've dodged the point. It isn't about the quality of the subject in question, it's about the quantity of the research. Maddison is pretty much alone because his research is both highly theoretical and very broad. That doesn't mean that he becomes an indisputable authority on the matter just because he's the only one taking such an approach. And, as mentioned so many times before, Maddison's methodology is very questionable.

To some extent yes, but historical numbers go a long way towards giving a sense of the scale of the differences in the variables, and such.

Only if such numbers have a direct representation in the game. EU doesn't handle things in real life units, formulas, or processes. There's a good chance that such things would be nearly impossible to insert into the game without massive distortion, if even that is possible.

 

[Fawr]

You need broad research if you want to model the economies of the whole world for 400 years. You need someone who has compared different times, and different parts of the world.

Maddison is the expert at that, but you want to discard his numbers because GDP (and GDP per person) is modeled in game by concepts with names like "base tax", "production efficiency" & "trade efficiency".

 

[Dafool]

You need broad research if you want to model the economies of the whole world for 400 years. You need someone who has compared different times, and different parts of the world.

Maddison is the expert at that, but you want to discard his numbers because GDP (and GDP per person) is modeled in game by concepts with names like "base tax", "production efficiency" & "trade efficiency".[/QUOTE]

I'm disregarding Maddison's numbers for two reasons. First, they're hardly indisputable and many historians consider them suspect. Especially when we get down to regional differences, something EU does portray, Maddison's numbers have a tendency to fail under scrutiny. Second, Maddison's numbers can be used as a reference at best. If you think it'll be easy to turn GDP into base tax, production efficiency, and trade efficiency, then please do so. And when that's done, please show me the highly accurate gameplay that you assume it will produce.

 

[arctus]

China did not conquer world for the reason the chinese race has another spirit than the european races. They are more introverted and not much aggressive.