Not sure the Romans were particularly pious though, more practical in their approach to their religion: do ut es, 'I give that you may give'. The priesthood positions were more of another step in their career paths.
Faction on monarchies
- Thread starter lucaluca
- Start date
-
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.
Not sure the Romans were particularly pious though, more practical in their approach to their religion: do ut es, 'I give that you may give'. The priesthood positions were more of another step in their career paths.
Veterans/armies should take on the faction of their generals. Julius Caesar's armies should be aligned to the Populares while Pompey's armies should be more aligned more to the Conservative factions so even when Caesar dies his armies still remain loyal to his successors(Octavian/Mark Antony).
Perhaps that your factions might be better named: Aristocrats (civic+religious), Plutocrats (mercantile), Populists (populists+military).
Then, specific Theocrats (more religious focused than aristocrats) and Imperials (more military focused than democrats) factions might contextually appears...
Theocrats in the Hebrew-like context, Imperials in the Roman Empire-like context.
Can't really agree with that naming either, Artistocrats could be both mercantile as well as populists themselves, Julius Caesar and the Gracchus brothers came from distinguished noble linages while leading Optimates like Pompey and Cicero were both from Equastrian backgrounds.
Perhaps... It depend, in fact, what you call an aristocrat, because "mercantile aristocrats" would be close to an oxymoron according to political philosophers of that time. Remember that being an aristocrat do not exactly mean being patrician or an eupatrid. Being an aristocrat mean being one of the best men of the City (aristoi and optimates both mean "the best ones", as you know), not only skilled but also honest and benevolent, acting for the common wealth. Birth distinctions are something that go with corrupted oligarchies, while the most logical way to found Aristocrats is trough the election by suffrage.
Timocrats and Plutocrats would rather be those who could be more logically associated to a mercantile faction as they give much value to goods and money, which tend to make them favour their social class wealth over common wealth.
When designing factions, I feel that the sole kind of pertinent questions is "who were their political allies? who were their clients? who supported them? who were their political adversaries?...". So, it is clear that Caesar and Gracchi Brothers were of the populist faction, while Cicero was of the aristocratic one, not the reverse nor any other.
The thirty tyrants and their partisans might be imperials...
To represent social classes and birth lineage, POPs and character traits would be, in my humble opinion, way more pertinent than factions. G. Iulius Caesar would have a patrician trait, perhaps even a descend of Venus trait, like all Iulii, but would anyway join the popular faction.
Last edited:
I always saw EUR factions as being less like modern, organised political parties and more about simply representing a set of values that each character prefers over the rest. It's not like a character goes to Civic Party meetings and votes for a leader etc. It's more that a character being in a party represents the kinds of actions that they prefer to focus on.
However, where I think EUR failed was that beyond choosing a consul, the strength of these parties made little difference. You ended up probably favouring the Militarist or the Religious parties (for the battle bonuses and omen bonuses, respectively) and just ignoring the rest.
What I'd like to see is an increase in the number of laws or policies that affect the happiness and influence of factions - kind of like what Stellaris does. And even allow characters to veto certain laws/policies if their faction opposes it (and the character has the power of veto, of course).
However, where I think EUR failed was that beyond choosing a consul, the strength of these parties made little difference. You ended up probably favouring the Militarist or the Religious parties (for the battle bonuses and omen bonuses, respectively) and just ignoring the rest.
What I'd like to see is an increase in the number of laws or policies that affect the happiness and influence of factions - kind of like what Stellaris does. And even allow characters to veto certain laws/policies if their faction opposes it (and the character has the power of veto, of course).
Exactly, their bonus were just too good to ignore them.
Anyway , returning to the faction names, at least in Rome, their "historical names" can be identified quite easely:
Religious - Mos Maiorum - The roman's old way of life is good, philosophy or other cults or just luxury are bad because corrupt the society. Example: Cato the Elder .
Civic - Optimates - Great agrarian aristocracy, traditionally the true power in Rome. They have the power, they want to keep them. Example: Sulla
Merchantile - Equites - Rich plebeians, traders wtc. Sometimes allied with Optimates, sometimes against them. Example: Crassus.
Populist - Populares - Easy: they support the instances of the plebs against the patricians. Example: Caius Marius
Military - Imperiales - Quite unhistorical in the republican, probably the most militaristic exponents of the previous factions. Examples Marcus Antonius.
Now my question is: can we make a similar schema for example in the greek society? Or we have to stay with "generic names/factions" ?
You probably need to stay generic, unless you can name the factions for Persian, Egyptian, Indian, Briton, Gallic, Germanic, Iberian, etc. cultures.
I'm quite curious to see how factions will be implemented for "the rest of world" . I mean, I don't know if there will be a "senate" in tribal countries ( which are a big part of the celtic europe) or in monarchies , and if yes how they will influence the decision of the ruler
Mos Maiorum wasn't properly a faction, but a set of values, which was shared by many optimates as it tended to favour nobility and which was opposed by many populares as it tended to oppose to let the vulgar people weight on significant political decisions. And Equites was a social class rather than a faction.
The opposition between optimates and populares also existed in the Hellenic world, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_coup_of_411_BC
Like in Rome, the religious and civic was quite connected (with aristocrats) while the populist and military was also quite connected (with democrats).
But perhaps that the factions should represent sub-parties...
Yes, I know. You are right it's not a true faction. But I haven't found another name to represent them.