Many empires didn't fall as a result of an open rebellion or disastrous civil war, but gradually ceased to be a united state as the central authority faded away and the governors became de facto independent. I don't think any Paradox game even tries to model this, but I believe that Imperator is in a unique position to depict it in some way.
I'm talking about the governors. The game gives everyone this system where you can appoint anyone and remove any time without a reason (unless disloyal). And when they become disloyal they just start a civil war to depose you.
Let's compare this to the brilliant Roman administrative system. The post of governors was restricted to the former high officials (proconsuls and propraetors), served fixed time. This system secured loyalty to Rome, made them unlikely to rebel or defect to the enemy, and prevented them from concentrating power within the province.
Achaemenid satraps served for life and their post was hereditary. So, naturally, they would concentrate powerbase, but the system countered this by granting a high degree of autonomy, which made them less likely to revolt, but there were still many revolts. Furthermore, their loyalties were questionable, and were eager to defect to the strongest if they were allowed to keep their position; that is to say that if the satraps would have fought for the last fort, Alexander wouldn't ever be able to occupy all of Anatolia.
Therefore the disloyal governors shouldn't always try to overthrow the state but aim for a more realistic goal of making the province theirs. I believe this could be accomplished by giving every province an autonomy level from 1 to 5. Which would determine how much they contribute, can they be removed, is the position hereditary, etc. Naturally, the governors would be more loyal the higher the autonomy level is. So, increasing autonomy would be postponed civil wars at the cost of weakening the empire. At level 5, the governor would no longer contribute anything to the state. If you don't grant them autonomy, they will still start a civil war and seek to overthrow the state.
I'm talking about the governors. The game gives everyone this system where you can appoint anyone and remove any time without a reason (unless disloyal). And when they become disloyal they just start a civil war to depose you.
Let's compare this to the brilliant Roman administrative system. The post of governors was restricted to the former high officials (proconsuls and propraetors), served fixed time. This system secured loyalty to Rome, made them unlikely to rebel or defect to the enemy, and prevented them from concentrating power within the province.
Achaemenid satraps served for life and their post was hereditary. So, naturally, they would concentrate powerbase, but the system countered this by granting a high degree of autonomy, which made them less likely to revolt, but there were still many revolts. Furthermore, their loyalties were questionable, and were eager to defect to the strongest if they were allowed to keep their position; that is to say that if the satraps would have fought for the last fort, Alexander wouldn't ever be able to occupy all of Anatolia.
Therefore the disloyal governors shouldn't always try to overthrow the state but aim for a more realistic goal of making the province theirs. I believe this could be accomplished by giving every province an autonomy level from 1 to 5. Which would determine how much they contribute, can they be removed, is the position hereditary, etc. Naturally, the governors would be more loyal the higher the autonomy level is. So, increasing autonomy would be postponed civil wars at the cost of weakening the empire. At level 5, the governor would no longer contribute anything to the state. If you don't grant them autonomy, they will still start a civil war and seek to overthrow the state.
- 9
- 6
