I know! Exactly! As its essentially the set of values that separates the "backwards" from the "modern" modern nations essentially have low corruption, and virtually no unrest, good tech and are developed and have large merchant marine fleets and thus doing alot of trading.
Russia for example as a mid point between "Western European" modern and eastern backwards ness is an example of defend tech, some infastructure, regional unrest and some corruption and large size would give negative modifiers on corruption in far flung regions like vladivostok.
I've noted a number of times efforts to promote the reform of the system by which a rigid dichotomy exists between Western powers and Uncivs. In many petitions for redress of this feature, a fundamental shift is called for.
In "War, Peace, and Power: Diplomatic History of Europe, 1500-2000", Dr. Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius puts forth a theory that, following the end of the 30 Years War, a form of international diplomacy became standard which increasingly centered around the idea of a preservation of a European Balance of Power where a polity's representation and participation within the diplomatic "game" so to speak hinged above all on whether or not it carried out government a mannner matching the European state system.
I'm going to take what is sure to be an unpopular stance and make a defense of the general premise of the Civilized/Uncivilized dichotomy in spite of its apparent lack of relevance in looking at the past with the aid of hindsight because this sort of designation, coupled with the absence of European systems of government, provided a diplomatic double-standard in which balance of power concerns could be bypassed entirely in territorial acquisition- in the name of bringing civilization.
Modernization would be one of the central issues in Vic2. Dual-economies and societies, with industrial new order competing with the traditional and rural one, is a good issue. Better than "civilised" or "uncivilised" in Vicky1, I think a "modern"/"traditional" would be the point.
The representation of non-western nations being "uncivilized" in Victoria, I would have to argue, is actually important- crucial, one might even argue, as a reflection of the nature of international diplomacy by the 19th century. In continental Europe itself, the age when states occupying wide stretches of the map could be canabilized by other states and land and population simply "taken" formally had ended- I see the late 18th century three-way partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between Austria, Russia, and Prussia to be the last example of the explicit and undisguised conquest of one group of people by another (or several) with any sort of permanency in a way that was common in diplomacy and military expansion during previous eras. After the Napoleonic wars and the establishment of the Concert of Europe system of a balance of powers, characterized by Great Powers being subjected in their actions formally and informally to multilateral scrutiny and the threat of potential intervention to stop aggressive territorial expansion and establishment of continental hegemony, the notion of sovereignty of other states became one which all major players had to defer to.
But the non-Western world was a different story. Don't get me wrong, I would never use the word "uncivilized" to refer to a different cultural group of people simply because of a lower level of economic development, but this idea of non-western people as being "uncivilized" permitted without generating international diplomatic antagonism within Europe the astonishingly rapid territorial expansion and expansion of commercial interest in situations such as the scramble for Africa formally made legitimate in Berlin in 1885.
The trends of colonial imperialism which characterized the latter half of the 19th century would not have been possible if the European state system of government and international diplomacy had existed beyond the European landmass at the time. Giving polities in Africa and Asia and their inhabitants the title "uncivilized" and referring abstractly to a humanitarian mission to civilize them was all the pretext needed to essentially conquer other parts of the world. I realize that's oversimplified, but considering the immense size of territorial acquisitions made (and recognized formally in international politics among European) by powers which engaged in colonial empire-building during the 19th century while the political map of Europe itself remained relatively static, one cannot help but see this distinction of civilized and uncivilized parts of the globe as having a gigantic impact on history.
The reflection of this in Victoria is accurate in this regard. The nature of uncivilized nations being hopeless against the expansionist tenancies of European great powers when the gap in development and industrialization is immense is one we're all familiar with just from playing the game, but very real historical cultural attitudes made this competition especially one-sided. That the dichotomy of traditional and modern economic patterns made imperial expansion by more developed powers possible in the first place, yes this is absolutely true. However, imperial Russia never managed to emerge fully into the modern world like its western counterparts. The institution of serfdom and its emphasis on static agrarian economic patterns remained far longer in Russia than anywhere else and by the time the First World War came about Russian industrialization was still in its infant stages... but no one attempted to subject Russia to the status of societies in Africa and Asia, and no power could have gotten away with claiming Russia to be uncivilized and proceeding to take advantage of periods of Russian political weakness and societal instability (the Crimean War, the 1905 Revolution) to apply the same standards which were generally considered acceptable when dealing with non-westerners. To take advantage of Russia, universally understood to be a European and hence “Civilized”, enemies of the Tsar would have to come up with far better justification or excuses.
In summary, I think that the dichotomy of international politics between "civilized" and "uncivilized" in Vicky is an accurate portrayal of 19th-century international diplomacy. The situation this dichotomy presents during warfare between a "civilized" power and an "uncivilized" power wherein the former can annex the latter wholesale if a victory is achieved- and that this cannot be repeated against Western states, even if they're devoid of industrial development- provides an accurate portrayal of how for example the UK accumulated well over 4 million miles of new territory along with tens of millions of inhabitants as subjects, or how France and Germany even without being in the lead annexed 3 million and 1 million square miles of territory in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific all without the direct and immediate result of antagonism to prevent hegemony.
In the contemporary period for both ordinary people and career academics discussing history would not include analysis of the peoples and cultures subjugated by Western powers during the 19th century as being "uncivilized". For such a notion to be expressed explicitly as a personal belief by an individual today is strongly disdainful to all but certain fringe groups of society because we see this designation as being inaccurate, distasteful, a sign of ignorance and a lack of education and potentially offensive in and of itself.
But in a time when acceptance of studies supposedly confirming scientifically-based racial prejudice was widespread and the popular concept of Social Darwinism was being applied to just about everything the word "uncivilized" wasn't just an understanding of non-western culture or even an explicit denigration of it- it was also synonymous with "non-Western".
However, the criterion for civilizing does seem to be somewhat inflexible. Since the decisive factor can be judged to be parity with European nations, there should be a provision for a faster route of transformation out of the severe handicap of unciv status.
Anyone remember in 1896 how quickly the great powers opened formal diplomatic relations with Ethiopia after it turned back an Italian invasion? If an unciv which becomes involved in a war against a modern nation manages to end the conflict with 1)no loss of territory and 2)unquestionable military victory denoted in the course of the conflict, then it should trigger entry into the "civilized" world and a small but noticable boost in relations with the great powers to represent formal diplomatic recognition.
about industrialisation. it's exagerated in vicky1. industrial sector was more productive than agriculture but in population the industrial employment was never bigger than the agricultural one. in contrast, in vicky1, I always ended with full industrial population which is not correct.
I would agree that the process of Industrialization has been given attention often as the
only factor influencing the colonial carve-up of the world by Europeans, but this is only part of the story as without cultural context the importance of industry doesn't allow for history to have taken the course that it has.
So I would agree that industrialization and everything it entailed has been exaggerated in the role of international politics, but in the realm of domestic politics and economics- even more widely in terms of the impact on society at large of the shift of focus in modern nations from agriculture to manufacturing is actually very difficult to overestimate in its revolutionary effect and, if one traces labor trends into the contemporary era the process of occupation re-assignment seems to have (almost) reached its extreme logical conclusion.
I'll use the USA as an example because its industrialization is arguably the most dramatic. At the start of the 19th century American domestic manufacturing was still in the very earliest phases of development and the percentage of the total workforce engaged in agriculture was around 85%. By 1890 American manufacturing had surpassed all other competition in its scope and production or, if one wants to contest a clear leadership position then the top manufacturer titled would be contested between the US and Germany.
This transformation resulted, despite the fact that Western settlement and establishment of farmsteads had become a part of the American historical identity, in the drastic drop in agricultural occupations as a percentage of the workforce- down to about 40% by 1900. By 1980 agriculture only employed 3% of the total workforce, and since then it has somewhat stabilized (declining at a lower rate to become approximately half a percent of the total workforce today)
That a nation's population in Victoria could become almost entirely involved in industry may not represent statistical reality but it is fully in line with long-term economic trends.
Regarding certain public measures as a prerequisite to urbanization, the fact that in the mid-19th century the population of major metropolitan areas in the Europe and the Americas grew exponentially and drew migration from rural areas in large volume even during times when overpopulation had caused the urban standard of living to exist on a level that we today would consider unlivable- this should be a sign that urbanization as a demographic trend continues regardless of living conditions so long as employment opportunities flourish.
