Europa Universalis IV: Developer diary 30 - Four more countries and even more..

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Persia still a theocracy, sigh. Why is 1979 Iran time travelling to the Renaissance? Did they steal the Aztec Time Machine?

actually the safavid persia was a theocracy. the king was some kind of religous head also and since the safavids claimed that they r descendant of the prophet of islam's line of family many of persian ppl of the time saw them as a holy man also ( not god-like beings like pharaohs of ancient egypt or tzars but kind of holy) and they believed in what he told or did. so technically speaking it was a theocracy with more or less freedom for other religions (depending on the idea of the ruling king).
 
this has probably been asked, but will these national ideas be available to read in the menu of the game (rather than having to manually enter a game with different states to see what their national ideas)
 
Show us moar gameplay features please!
 
Persia was not a theocracy until 1979. At best a theocracy monarchy :p

still is a theocracy! just instead of republic it was a monarchy, so im still right :D

Erm what tsars are you talking about in particular?

according to the book "Peter the Great: His life and world" written by "Robert K. Massie" tzars (or tsars) were holy men and god-like to the russian ppl of their time. ofc they didnt worship them! but they were thought as holy and saint and etc, just not worshiped...

Peter the Great was the antichrist. :laugh:

...and this one too :D
 
according to the book "Peter the Great: His life and world" written by "Robert K. Massie" tzars (or tsars) were holy men and god-like to the russian ppl of their time. ofc they didnt worship them! but they were thought as holy and saint and etc, just not worshiped...

In every country which had most of its population living as serfs (which includes all 3 nations that had tsars, that i can think of right now) monarchs were often seen as almost magical beings. It doesnt mean that they were worshiped as gods or god like beings, it merely has to do with their shiny clothes and wealthy lifestyle appearing like a divine spectacle to common serfs who have never seen anything as pretty (of course this is an oversimplification). Further more, just like in Vicky 2, when you have a serf-heavy society, most of the times you also have a powerful clergy that preaches to these serfs (and keeps them in line for the tsars) and of course, in such situation, the best propaganda that clergy can serve are stories about piety/virtue of their noble tsars and their holy-like devotion to God etc bla bla bla. So today, all those centuries later, in many countries (Orthodox for example) youll have kings and tsars canonized as saints, thats how the "system" worked back in those days (and one of the reasons commies dealt with religion as harshly as they did) and thats what the quoted author was talking about.

What you said specifically was "( not god-like beings like pharaohs of ancient egypt or tzars but kind of holy)" alludes that tsars were god-like beings like/equal to pharaohs, which i, in my humble opinion as it is, consider wrong. Coming from a country that had one single tsar, i can even imagine some Ruskies being offended.

edit: if you wanna nit pick, some monarchs in the western Europe, who were both secular and religious heads of state, fit way more into comparison with pharaohs than anything we had in the east, even the most extreme examples (of course even that comparison is horribly wrong).
 
In every country which had most of its population living as serfs (which includes all 3 nations that had tsars, that i can think of right now) monarchs were often seen as almost magical beings. It doesnt mean that they were worshiped as gods or god like beings, it merely has to do with their shiny clothes and wealthy lifestyle appearing like a divine spectacle to common serfs who have never seen anything as pretty (of course this is an oversimplification). Further more, just like in Vicky 2, when you have a serf-heavy society, most of the times you also have a powerful clergy that preaches to these serfs (and keeps them in line for the tsars) and of course, in such situation, the best propaganda that clergy can serve are stories about piety/virtue of their noble tsars and their holy-like devotion to God etc bla bla bla. So today, all those centuries later, in many countries (Orthodox for example) youll have kings and tsars canonized as saints, thats how the "system" worked back in those days (and one of the reasons commies dealt with religion as harshly as they did) and thats what the quoted author was talking about.

What you said specifically was "( not god-like beings like pharaohs of ancient egypt or tzars but kind of holy)" alludes that tsars were god-like beings like/equal to pharaohs, which i, in my humble opinion as it is, consider wrong. Coming from a country that had one single tsar, i can even imagine some Ruskies being offended.

edit: if you wanna nit pick, some monarchs in the western Europe, who were both secular and religious heads of state, fit way more into comparison with pharaohs than anything we had in the east, even the most extreme examples (of course even that comparison is horribly wrong).

what u said is true in a part, and in my opinion not true in other. i know tsars were not worshiped as i mentioned, but they were considered like one step beneath being god somehow, but as in persia they were not like that, just considered a holy man and kind of a religious head (cos not every one in that country believed in them and their faith) and the holy part would fade if they didnt act like one and do sins in the view of muslims. but as i have read russians had a proverb that said "only god and tsar know" so one can say they were even considered higher than saints.

anyhow u got my point about safavid kings, and about comparison i rly meant that OR to divide them into their own time and ways and ppl, cos u know its not AND!

but anyway i didnt mean any disrespect to good russians and/or good polish ppl whom i like both them and their countries and respect thier tsars and tsaritsas :)

P.S. i just know them by reading about them in books, so i dont claim my words to be more true than someone of that country or culture and living there ;) just saying what i know, and my point was about persia not russia! :D
 
Last edited:
That proverb means that in everyday life of your average serfs, in his system of reference, there are 2 different things: theres divine - only god and sky are above me (we, Slavs, are obsessed with skies for some reason) - and there is earthly - king/tsar is the head of my country, sent here by god bla bla bla. It doesnt mean that tsar is literally Jesus or Saint Peter-like person, touched by god walking the earth turning water into wine with his fart, no it merely means once acceptance of the social order (in other words saying "i know my place - which isnt to think/decide, but to do what im told").

In my people's history the same thing later turned into "god and king", "god and country" and finally culminated with "Tito and the (communist) party". Strong desire to bring some meaning/order into everyday's life.
 
I won't! I will be marching in the streets with my fellow Norwegians, under the banner of my - this year - 150 year old congregation.:D
 
actually the safavid persia was a theocracy. the king was some kind of religous head

Safavid is a dynastic name, Persia was no more a theocracy than the church of England was after the establishment of the Church of England, yes the monarch was a religious head but he was succeeded by his son.

I really don't understand why the Devs won't fix this anachronism or at least give Persia a unique government. They must notice all the Safavids when their writing the history files, but then in game after your first ruler dies the Safavid dynasty disappears and you get some generically named nobody.
 
Norway:

1. Loyal Vassal - 5% extra tax efficiency when a vassal of either Sweden or Denmark.
2. Greenland Forgotten - minus 20% colonial range, -1 revolt risk.
3. Viking ennui - -1 revolt risk
4. Winter reading - -1% tech cost
5. Winter Bjork - +1 revolt risk
6. er that's it.
 
Norway:

1. Loyal Vassal - 5% extra tax efficiency when a vassal of either Sweden or Denmark.
2. Greenland Forgotten - minus 20% colonial range, -1 revolt risk.
3. Viking ennui - -1 revolt risk
4. Winter reading - -1% tech cost
5. Winter Bjork - +1 revolt risk
6. er that's it.

6. Winter sports - +1 % prestige
7. butter shortage - +10 % additional attrition

When they have all their ideas, Norwegian soldiers will start wearing lusekofte, granting 5 % less winter attrition.
 
Will there be some sort of event or decision to bring about the conversion of Iran to Shi'ism in the game? In reality that process was rather quick and thorough, and simply using missionaries will most likely not be sufficient to simulate it.
 
That proverb means that in everyday life of your average serfs, in his system of reference, there are 2 different things: theres divine - only god and sky are above me (we, Slavs, are obsessed with skies for some reason) - and there is earthly - king/tsar is the head of my country, sent here by god bla bla bla. It doesnt mean that tsar is literally Jesus or Saint Peter-like person, touched by god walking the earth turning water into wine with his fart, no it merely means once acceptance of the social order (in other words saying "i know my place - which isnt to think/decide, but to do what im told").

In my people's history the same thing later turned into "god and king", "god and country" and finally culminated with "Tito and the (communist) party". Strong desire to bring some meaning/order into everyday's life.

my point of view on that "and" differs in meaning from urs and is more similar to ur view of that "or" i placed in my comment about pharaoh. not saying who knows better or crap like that, just i see that in other way than u r. anyway im most interested in persia and safavid than russia and tsars.

Safavid is a dynastic name, Persia was no more a theocracy than the church of England was after the establishment of the Church of England, yes the monarch was a religious head but he was succeeded by his son.

I really don't understand why the Devs won't fix this anachronism or at least give Persia a unique government. They must notice all the Safavids when their writing the history files, but then in game after your first ruler dies the Safavid dynasty disappears and you get some generically named nobody.

in safavid era it was a theocracy indeed, no doubt about that. it just was as many things in the east is, some exotic and one of a kind theocracy. the religious head title and duties and king title and duties were passed down in the family from father to son.
if u ask me the devs should make persia a unique theocracy, like a "Shia Theocracy" or even better one the "Sufi Theocracy" or something like that, with higher tolerance for other religions (as it was) but a thing for ottoman turks who also were sunni and their kind of sworn enemies.
the name part rly is dev's fault cos all the names r written in history like ismail I, tahmasb I, ismail II, mohammad khodabande, abbas I and so on. not that hard to get the names.