- Oct 8, 2016
Title. Think I would make sense as the people would have legal way to show their displeasure at the government, rather than overthrowing it. It also gives the reform a bit more importance late game.
Ah yes, the Irish Rebellion! I wouldn't really consider this a "revolution" by the games defenition. It would be closer to a separatist revolt.To the best of my knowledge, England was one of relatively few countries that did spawn their own home-grown revolutionary movements in the French Revolution era, namely in Ireland (Wolfe Tone & that lot). A lot of more absolutist countries (Prussia, for example) did better than parliamentary England in that regard. So I don't see any historical justification for this idea.
Ireland and England are not the same country, but technicalities aside, the anti-British sentiment in Ireland exists since around the Norman era when Ireland became the weaker realm for the first time since the early Iron Age, and everything in between Cromwell's genocide of the Irish to the Troubles was more separatist and religious revolts and rebellions in nature than a proper revolution as the ones in America or France. One interesting example would be the Irish-born Duke of Wellington's famous quote: A man can be born in a stable and still not be an animal.To the best of my knowledge, England was one of relatively few countries that did spawn their own home-grown revolutionary movements in the French Revolution era, namely in Ireland (Wolfe Tone & that lot). A lot of more absolutist countries (Prussia, for example) did better than parliamentary England in that regard. So I don't see any historical justification for this idea.
Yes, but this is modeled in the English Civil War disaster. They also very different reasons for revolting. The English "revolted" because of the machinations of Charles I and sought to curtail his authority; while the French revolted because the monarchy had ignored the suffering of the people and denied any effort at reform (and even went as far to fire a popular minister who wanted the aristocracy to start paying taxes) amid a failing economy. I believe would have been more immune to a Revolution because much of English/British peasantry had, by the 17th and 18th century gotten used to way the they were ruled with the Magna Carta and House of Lords and House of Commons. Any type of "revolution" would have started there and spread outward, rather than the peasantry revolting taking over a Royal Prison and setting up their government against the wishes of the Monarch, would result in the monarch being coerced into being a constitutional monarch. The English System had already set up, via the Magna Carta, some degree of separation of power and the breakdown of that power resulted in the English Civil War. Thus anger at the elite would have been voiced through the elections for the House of Commons.Nah. I mean the English had a parliament and still cut the head off their own king more than a hundred years earlier than the French did. They even had a army general rise to absolute dictatorship in Cromwell mirroring Napoleon in many ways. I don't think there is any government invented by human minds that is immune to revolutions and such. As a matter of fact if England and France had traded socioeconomic conditions (ie enlightenment ideas spreading + financial bankruptcy + corrupt/incompetent leadership + angry peasants) I don't particularly see any governmental magic that would inherently have saved England any more than France.
I agree that Wolfe Tone and Napper Tandy were basically sepratist rebels, but you have to admit that their particular rebellion had a revolutionary vibe in a way that previous Irish an Highlander rebellions didn't, even if just because they were living in a revolutionary time and getting support from the French. The main point for me though is that the English Parliament might have prevented a revolution in England, where people had a stake in government (and indeed you do seem to see that effect in later revolutionary waves in the 1800s); but it didn't stop the revolutionary itch in those parts of the Empire where people were disenfranchised, precisely because they didn't have any stake or ability to affect what was going on in Westminster.
Maybe a more granular way of doing it would be to have parliaments slow down the revolution in places with the right culture group, or something on similar lines. Or to make it slow down (or stop completely) in provinces with a non-rotten parliament seat.
That sounds closer to it.Perhaps the reform itself wouldn't give a resistance to the Revolution but, having a seat in Parliament in a state would give a state-wide bonus to resistance to revolution, along side a bonus to spread in unaccepted cultured provinces?