Commonwealth government type!?(in the demo)

[unmerged(779962)]

I don’t want to be in polite but could you explain to me why Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth has Feudal Monarchy government type? (in the demo)

To say the truth after I learned about new Republic system I was very excited. Then I saw quill18 You Tube video describing Poland and I got excited even more. “Is it possible that Paradox managed to somehow create a government type that would high light the unique system that existed in Commonwealth?” I said to myself.

Now I’m disappointed because Commonwealth was definitely not a Feudal Monarchy! Neither was it a Noble Republic, because voting rights had all nobles (5-7% of population) not only few rich houses that decided who rules between them self. In the end I would not object ( too much) if it would be Noble Republic because mechanism that worked in Commonwealth when it came to electing king was not so different, but with election cycle not 4 years but a life time of the elected king (or till his dethronement or resignation.. yes that happened … a lot ).

You may ask: What is this guy babbling, about? Republic that has a king? Yes, because how will you name a political system where the power of the ruler is limited by parliament (Sejm) and the ruler (however title you give him: president, prime minister, chancellor) is elected by the populace. 5-7% is not majority but it was 5-7% from 10 million that has active voting rights …we are talking about 17 century!

One of the founding rules of Poland and Commonwealth was Nihil Novi act that limited the power of the monarch giving the legislative power to Sejm! Nihil novi nisi commune consensu (“Nothing new without the common consent”) a fundament of personal freedom was a law in Poland since 1505! 64 years before Poland and Lithuania decided to unite. Americans had to fight for the same law (No taxation without representation) in a revolution against its own king almost 300 years later.

Ofc. Commonwealth was not a perfect country. It had problems both internal and external. Those kind of problems player has to face thanks to Missions and Dynamic Historical Events (and I have seen many very interesting DHE for Commonwealth). But that does not change the fact that Commonwealth was not ruled by Feudal Monarch!

I know that there are many different opinions about Commonwealth. It’s history can be interpreted in many ways and each and every one of you (who are willing to learn more about the subject) have right to form your opinion about that country but I don’t understand how can you place Commonwealth in the same row with Muscovy or Sweden in terms of government type!

I’m neither historian nor programmer so I shouldn’t, nor will I, suggest that I know better how to handle game mechanic in comparison to history. Probably every country could find a guy like me saying that X country government type was unique and requires some special treatment, but I just can’t shake the feeling that Commonwealth wasn’t treated fairly. You did create 9 Unique Governments for special countries, though.

 

[pieGEEK]

If the Jagiellons were still in power and it was just formed, feudal monarchy would be okay as a starting government then the Commonwealth's should change later on, possibly.

 

[Maccius]

I totally agree with Vilwind.

 

[Vishaing]

The main difficulty with giving the Commonwealth a proper treatment is that almost all of the things that made it unique were also the things that ultimately killed it, and it seems there is a sizable portion of the player-base that despises any limitation on their ability to conquer everything everywhere instantly.

As you said, when you get right down to it every country's government was unique in some way. I think I'll be able to model that with only a few additions. I'm planning to implement an "Elective Monarchy" government type in my mod, and I am also considering implementing a unique "Commonwealth" government for PLC or some other major Union of Eastern Nations. A Poland-Hungary Commonwealth is both plausible and interesting, even if its name is a little less cool. I will also be expanding on the Librium Veto, as it should have far more consequences than it currently has. And let's just say, letting any of your classes get too powerful will be a very bad idea...

 

[Chief of Staff]

The main difficulty with giving the Commonwealth a proper treatment is that almost all of the things that made it unique were also the things that ultimately killed it, and it seems there is a sizable portion of the player-base that despises any limitation on their ability to conquer everything everywhere instantly.

As you said, when you get right down to it every country's government was unique in some way. I think I'll be able to model that with only a few additions. I'm planning to implement an "Elective Monarchy" government type in my mod, and I am also considering implementing a unique "Commonwealth" government for PLC or some other major Union of Eastern Nations. A Poland-Hungary Commonwealth is both plausible and interesting, even if its name is a little less cool. I will also be expanding on the Librium Veto, as it should have far more consequences than it currently has. And let's just say, letting any of your classes get too powerful will be a very bad idea...

Isn't Noble Republic in theory similar to Elective Monarchy or even same thing? As this particular form of government not only elects a noble as the "monarch" but also allows for royal marriage.

 

[Patter Song]

Nihil Novi, a 1505 act that should totally be represented in a 1492 start.

EDIT: Was Poland even really that truly elective until 1572 when the Jagiellonian grip on the throne ended?

 

[Saranis]

You may ask: What is this guy babbling, about? Republic that has a king? Yes, because how will you name a political system where the power of the ruler is limited by parliament (Sejm) and the ruler (however title you give him: president, prime minister, chancellor) is elected by the populace. 5-7% is not majority but it was 5-7% from 10 million that has active voting rights …we are talking about 17 century!

Thats quite easy, it would be a Parliamentary Elective Monarchy. Towards the end of the commonwealth it WAS a Feudal Monarchy though as they abolished Monarch elections. Really though the nation should start with the same government type as the country (in this case poland) had when they formed the nation. Theres no need for a unique government type though as the country was effectively an elective monarchy.

 

[Badger Baron]

Isn't Noble Republic in theory similar to Elective Monarchy or even same thing? As this particular form of government not only elects a noble as the "monarch" but also allows for royal marriage.

Similar yes, but I wouldn't say the same thing. Not sure what the Noble Republic government type is supposed to represent though, but the Elective Monarchy should be for life, and probably also allow the state to offer itself as a senior/junior* partner in a personal union. (For life again, breaking upon the death of that king. It could be reestablished with his heir if that is desired.) Would actually be interesting to be able to do that, sacrificing some of your abilities in return for protection and possibly getting a great monarch. Not that it should be a sure thing though, and it might lead to a war if someone really doesn't like the idea of you being buddies with whatever state you picked. That would certainly make for a different experience though, especially if a simple interface was created for the election of monarchs in Elective Monarchies.

*Denmark was an elective monarchy, while Norway was hereditary, though the elective side of it was pretty theoretical since Norway was a huge trump card for the heir.

Nihil Novi, a 1505 act that should totally be represented in a 1492 start.

EDIT: Was Poland even really that truly elective until 1572 when the Jagiellonian grip on the throne ended?

That could be represented by the royal line in an Elective Monarchy getting more an more authority as they continued to be reelected, until the state was automatically turned into a Feudal/Administrative Monarchy (depending on tech). Similar to how Republics that continue to elect the same ruler end up changing governments, just more long term. Different events and decisions could increase or decrease it as well, which might result in stuff like Nihil Novi getting implemented. Overall, I think the systems I've suggested could actually be implemented in a relatively simple way, given the other stuff Paradox has already done.

 

[unmerged(779962)]

Nihil Novi, a 1505 act that should totally be represented in a 1492 start.

EDIT: Was Poland even really that truly elective until 1572 when the Jagiellonian grip on the throne ended?

In 1492 there was no Commonwealth. When I played Portugal the AI somehow managed to create Commonwealth and that’s when I noticed the Feudal Monarchy heresy.

Polish nobility “elected” each and every king since death of Casimir III the Great in 1370 and succession crisis after death of Louis I of Hungary and coronation of his daughter Jadwiga of Poland. Jagiellonian inherited only title of Grand Duke of Lithuania, Polish Crown was given to them each time as a result of both nations strategic alliance and way to ensure Personal Union. The free election become “public” matter after Union of Lublin which was created because there was no heir to the throne any more.

Towards the end of the commonwealth it WAS a Feudal Monarchy though as they abolished Monarch elections.

If you are speaking about Constitution of May 3, 1791 then you are mistaken my friend. Constitution of May 3 created a Constitutional Monarchy with Stanisław August Poniatowski as life time king. After his death the Crown was to be inherited by Frederick Augustus I of Saxony from House of Wettin and his male descendents.

Theres no need for a unique government type though as the country was effectively an elective monarchy.

I agree that Poland under Jagiellonian was a Feudal Monarchy but nobility gained freedom through all the time of their rule. King could not rise war taxes without Sejm acceptance. He could fund war from his own funds but to tax his subject he had to have their permission. Not all republic freedom have to be fought and won in bloody battles against autocratic ruler. Jagiellonians were reasonable rulers they gave power slowly and finally crated a Republic with a elective king as ruler but not tyrant. The same way if a republic ruler gains more and more autocratic power he becomes a despotic monarch. The same mechanic but other direction.

Isn't Noble Republic in theory similar to Elective Monarchy or even same thing? As this particular form of government not only elects a noble as the "monarch" but also allows for royal marriage.

Elective Monarchy and Noble Republic have few very distinctive differences. First of all is how do you, as a monarch legitimize your rule. Monarchs legitimize their autocrative rule by adding to their title a formula of “by the grace of god king of X” as the rulers of a republic legitimize them self by formula “by the will of the people president/doge/ The Big Kahuna of X “

Edit:
Just on the side note. Commonwealth in terms of personal freedom and religious tolerance was WAY ahead of any western nation. Before the colonization of Americas really kicked in 17-18 century majority of population migration was directed to the east (steppes of Ukraine and Polish plains were not that populated and there was still much land to be claimed) and many people looked for their luck in the land of the free in the east. Unfortunately constant aggression from despotic neighbors caused this colonization to hold and turn back towards land that was separated from “peaceful” nations like Russians or Germans by an ocean.
Commonwealth biggest enemy was geography and tourists. Vacations in Poland ! Have a happy invasion.

 

[Zubrowka]

The main difficulty with giving the Commonwealth a proper treatment is that almost all of the things that made it unique were also the things that ultimately killed it, and it seems there is a sizable portion of the player-base that despises any limitation on their ability to conquer everything everywhere instantly.

The Commonwealth was removed by its neighbors, not by itself. Multiply its internal strength by 1000000, and it doesn't matter. The liberalizing Commonwealth was seen as an ideological threat by its rather powerful neighbors, and therefore it met a diplomatic and military doomsday scenario: immediately surrounded by hostile powers on all sides and without allies. It's downfall is a precursor to the fight that France would take on for its revolution; not an isolated, unique, or inexplicable anomaly of history. Attempts to obfuscate this are aplenty but not persuasive when you really think it through. Blaming the victim is a rhetorical strategy that works well on some people all of the time and all people some of the time, but not all people all of the time (quoting Lincoln).

Also, the proper treatment is a bit hard to narrow down. The Commonwealth was somewhat federalist in nature given the independent functions of Lithuania from the crown. There was even an idea floated around about giving a Ruthenia portion of the state the same independent functions. Two states in the game feature some federalist modeling: the HRE and Japan. Neither are "tier 1." I'm not advocating for Poland to get a revamp of that magnitude. I am going to love the game anyway. I am just calling a spade a spade. Proper treatment is a subjective concept, and I think it would require a similar level of effort to get the Commonwealth right enough as it took for the HRE and Japan in this game. I for one just don't care enough about it.

Also, the critique here is more about a frustration with what is seen as historical inaccuracy that serves no particular purpose instead of a complaint over a challenge being too hard. Maybe I missed something specific you were responding to there. Sure some people get upset when the challenge is too great, but that is what makes a game fun (at least for me). I think I agree with your sentiment there, but I don't think the OP is getting at that at all. If the game purports to be historical, one of the countries or concepts that needs an asterisk denoting that it really isn't historical is the Commonwealth. Just acknowledging that is good enough for me anyway.

 

[Belissarius]

/snip. A Poland-Hungary Commonwealth is both plausible and interesting, even if its name is a little less cool. /snip...

What if you called it a HUNGRY Poland commonwealth? That a little cooler name.

 

[1alexey]

Actually, it was pretty normal for feudal monarchy to have king elected, and have a general-estate or a parliament.

France had general estates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_General_(France) that quite resemble the Sejm.

Great Britan had a parliament as well.

HRE had a parliament, and before the golden bull, HRE kaiser was elected similarly to other feudal monarchies.

Who get`s to vote on representatives to parliament is irrelevant. Poland was not a democracy, nor a republic since the King was elected for life.
It had serfdom, kings elected for life, a tonne of Nobility right and autonomy, and it`s military was for most of the time period fully composed of feudal levies and noble cavalry.
So, in fact it is quite accurate to call Poland/Commonwealth a feudal monarchy.

 

[mrout]

You may ask: What is this guy babbling, about? Republic that has a king? Yes, because how will you name a political system where the power of the ruler is limited by parliament (Sejm) and the ruler (however title you give him: president, prime minister, chancellor) is elected by the populace. 5-7% is not majority but it was 5-7% from 10 million that has active voting rights …we are talking about 17 century!

Sounds to me like Constitutional Monarchy would be most accurate, to be honest. It's not a Republic if it has a monarch, by definition. An elective monarchy where the monarch rules for life isn't a republic.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

If the Jagiellons were still in power and it was just formed, feudal monarchy would be okay as a starting government then the Commonwealth's should change later on, possibly.

It wouldn't be a Commonwealth then, it would just be Poland-Lithuania.

Nihil Novi, a 1505 act that should totally be represented in a 1492 start.

EDIT: Was Poland even really that truly elective until 1572 when the Jagiellonian grip on the throne ended?

It was dynastic elective under the Jagiellons, and Jagiello only got on the throne because he was elected.

I agree that Poland under Jagiellonian was a Feudal Monarchy but nobility gained freedom through all the time of their rule.

A high amount of autonomy for the nobility is one of the hallmarks of feudalism. The Commonwealth wasn't feudal because its ideas went against feudalism, it wasn't feudal because it had developed into something even more extreme.

Sounds to me like Constitutional Monarchy would be most accurate, to be honest. It's not a Republic if it has a monarch, by definition. An elective monarchy where the monarch rules for life isn't a republic.

That's like saying a republic that has a Duke isn't a republic, but look at Venice where Poland-Lithuania got the idea for a 'Serene Commonwealth' from. Doge is just an Italian (the Venetian form is actually Doxe) form of Duke and a Duke is just a low level monarch.

Great Britain was and is basically a Republic in all but name despite having a hereditary monarchy.

 

[unmerged(779962)]

What if you called it a HUNGRY Poland commonwealth? That a little cooler name.

Who gets the first place in the name is irrelevant. I personally like the idea because Hungary was one of few Polish (and Commonwealth) neighbors who didn't invade us on regular basis. They had common enemy (Ottomans) plus Poland “agreed” not to interfere (too much) in Habsburg business in both Bohemia and Hungary. Habsburgs on their e end provided perfect “misdirection” for Ottomans expansion and secured Commonwealth flank. At the end Poland-Hungary Commonwealth would have the same problem as did Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Geography and Tourists.

You want your country be a militaristic “bad boy” and start a global conflict… invade Poland it works no matter the era.

Actually, it was pretty normal for feudal monarchy to have king elected, and have a general-estate or a parliament.

France had general estates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_General_(France) that quite resemble the Sejm.

Great Britan had a parliament as well.

HRE had a parliament, and before the golden bull, HRE kaiser was elected similarly to other feudal monarchies.

Who get`s to vote on representatives to parliament is irrelevant. Poland was not a democracy, nor a republic since the King was elected for life.

The main difference with France and German general-estate or a parliament in comparison to Commonwealth Sejm was that Sejm was not convened only when monarch wanted something (over taxation, public approval of some crime etc ).

Every 2 years regional nobles elected their representatives posłów (deputy) who went to Sejm and discussed /created new laws ( one 6 weeks long session each 2 years with exception for “extraordinary” session that convened at any time for maximum 2 weeks ). Sejm became a very powerful representative body of the Szlachta or 'middle nobility'. Soon the Sejm began to severely limit the king's powers. Its chambers reserved the final decisions in legislation, taxation, budget, and treasury matters (including military funding), foreign affairs, and the conferment of nobility.

Commonwealth was described as noble Democracy. Polish name of the country is Rzeczpospolita and its Polish synonym to Republic.

Problems that the country had were of republican nature. Liberum Veto was a mistake in form that was implemented in Commonwealth but it was created for a reason. It was established to make sure that NO king will gain enough power to overthrown the role of Sejm by bribing the majority of deputies. Creators of the Liberum Veto hoped that there will always be one honest deputy who would not succumb to corruption. Unfortunately that idea was used by the corrupt and ignorant to derail any form of reform in Commonwealth.

It had serfdom, kings elected for life, a tonne of Nobility right and autonomy, and it`s military was for most of the time period fully composed of feudal levies and noble cavalry.

About military. The first Polish title of Grand Crown Hetman dates from 1505. Hetmans were not paid for their job by the Royal Treasury, there were nominated by the king with Sejm approval. Hetmans were the main commanders of the military forces, second only to the monarch in the army's chain of command. The fact that they could not be removed by the monarch made them very independent. Job of Grand Crown Hetman in addition to being a military leader was forming and organizing army for war. Hetman had three source of funds to create army. Royal Treasury, Sejm war taxes, and personal funds. Hetman decided whom to enlist and how much to pay. At any given time the Commonwealth had four Hetmans – a Great and Field Hetman for each of both Poland and Lithuania.

From the 15th century, pospolite ruszenie levies were used less often than were professional military troops. Nonetheless, the szlachta continued to believe they formed an elite army, and that their participation in the defense of the country was an important reason for their privileged position in it. As this was used as a justifications for lower taxation, the Commonwealth treasury found itself increasingly starved for funds to pay to regular, standing army. With the Commonwealth Army reduced by that time to around 16,000, it was easy for its neighbors to overpower its armies (the Imperial Russian Army numbered 300,000; the Prussian Army and Imperial Austrian Army, 200,000).

Where do you see feudal levies here?

Edit:


I agree that there was problem with serfdom in Commonwealth in 18 century, but don’t mistake the fact that serfdom resurfaced itself because of government policy. Serfdom was a result of 100 years of constant looting the country by neighbors (17 century is basically war after war, after war) and fact that population migration from west stopped ( French, Germans, Duchy etc. found new and more peaceful land to migrate… America).
Commonwealth was never over populated country and its need for working hands was always great. Majority of land wasn’t claimed here till 19-20 century. That enforced nobility to extend their tolerance towards foreign “immigrants” whom they wanted to work on their land. Maybe it wasn’t total freedom but it was minimal serfdom through majority of Commonwealth history.

Everything changed in second half of 18 century when economic stagnation and lack of reforms coursed poverty among the majority of szlachta. Many nobles were as poor as common peasant. So as result of decreasing economic stability back warded and ignorant parts of nobility started to use Russian system of “enforcing obedience” by increasing serfdom of the population. Not all did. Whole Constitution of May 3 was a desperate effort to reform and redirect government policy towards real personal freedom.

 

[dharper]

I can't really say if this will work, not having access to the full game yet, but it looks like it might be possible to mod an elective monarchy, by adding this to the 00_government.txt file:

elective_monarchy = {
	republic = yes
	duration = 25
	valid_for_new_country = yes
	royal_marriage = yes
	
	republican_name = no
	
	ai_will_do = {
		factor = 1
	}

	#bonus
	tolerance_heretic = 1
	tolerance_heathen = 1
	land_morale = 0.25
}

Change the bonuses to whatever you feel best. If I understand the files right, this ought to give you a country that allows for royal marriages and elections whenever your ruler dies. However, it would qualify as a republic, which means a couple things: (1) it has access to the plutocracy ideas, not the aristocracy ideas; (2) monarchies will gain CB against it when they get access to the revolution and counter-revolution idea; and (3) you will only be able to change to a different form of republic, not to a different form of monarchy (except through rebels). This last problem can be fixed by creating a decision for the country to change to certain forms of monarchies given certain conditions (perhaps having +3 stability and a monarch with 6 DIP? Perhaps certain ideas or administrative tech? Perhaps just spending a certain number of AMP?).

EDIT: In attempting to test this, I've found that it doesn't give you a choice of candidates when your ruler dies. Because of that, it seems indistinguishable from a monarchy - you may as well go with a feudal monarchy or noble republic, then.

Alternatively, you could just give rulers a REALLY long duration - say, 25 or 50 years - which would be almost indistinguishable from death.

EDIT 2: Okay, this works - in game, I got a message saying that my ruler had died, causing a premature election. It then gave me a choice between a Bureaucrat candidate, Diplomat candidate or Military candidate, which really didn't seem very natural to an elective monarchy. Similarly, the main benefit of a republic is that your candidate gains in ability each time he is re-elected, which would be rare under this kind of government. In the end, I still think going with a regular monarchy would be better for Poland, but I've added the code I used to this post.