Historical Westernization

[User4035]

Many threads have occurred over the past year arguing the historical accuracy of 'westernizing'.
Usually the argument is 'no county other than Japan westernized' and that wasn't until well after the EU4 time period. And the russian westernization was a gradual process which is more akin to just keeping up in tech.

But a little known fact about a nation that did successfully westernize are the Cherokee Indians. They westernize during the EU4time period. Late 1700's, early 1800's. In the 1830's or so the States government got greedy and kicked them out, took their land, etc....

The Cherokee had been in contact with the English and had traded with them since the 1650's. They eventually created a written script for their language, they had towns and settlements, had a constitution, some owned African slaves, modern agriculture, etc...

This is one example of a non-European nation that westernized during the EU4 time period.


Why don't more people know about this little known fact?
Mainly its because of how their nation got destroyed. Pure greed. The Governor literally signed a piece of paper that said white settlers could take all their land. This was before the cival war so the states had alot more power than the federal government of the USA.


If anyone has more info on this I'd love to know more. My American history text book literally has like 2 paragraphs about this, and internet searches just bring up advertisements for cars.

 

[ahyangyi]

I'm deep in awe of Sequoyah's feat of inventing a writing script without being able to use one before...

That said, is what you described modeled by the "reform the government" button in game as well?

 

[balmung60]

I don't think so. The Cherokee adopted pretty much all of the institutions of "civilized" people, including Christianity, western dress, slavery and plantation farming. The whole nine yards.

Ironically, in game, even in the last dates in which they appear, they're still in their crap-tastic tech group, still pagan, and still a native council.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In-game westernization follows no path any nation in history did (in history, nations that attempted to modernize did not stagnate their technological development for over a decade and wind up less advanced than they'd have been if they never attempted it...then suddenly and forevermore be able to develop more quickly). It's purely there for gameplay reasons.

Tech groups in general are probably a bit too punishing and there's no good model for tech diffusion. A gun in China was pretty much as good as a gun in Europe for most points in this time period, the issue instead being systemic ability to project power and experience with fighting other advanced nations. It's laughable that a China that conquers adjacent to the Commonwealth and has experience directly interacting with and fighting Europeans will, in the game, progress identically to one that never leaves starting borders, same with an Indian nation that pushes adjacent to the Ottomans.

The key issue in saying how realistic vs unrealistic westernization is becomes that such is a pointless question. There's no clear indication of what the heck it's even supposed to mean. You become like Europe in administration? But how were you different in the first place, and by how much? You certainly don't in military.

It should probably be reworked alongside an entirely new tech model, or left as-is as a means for ROTW to be potentially viabled if handled at a level far beyond what the AI can mange (the AI westernizes then largely accomplishes nothing or dies anyway).

 

[Artyom87]

we have to realize that everything we know about history is farse. Especially American Indian history, which was written by Americans.

Russian, european, american, chinese, all have different interpretations of events.

COncerning the OP, the indian chief may not have signed anything. Matter of fact, I can tell you for a fact he didnt sign anything. You are basing your proofs on words of mouth, stories, and literature of hundreds years of age. This is silly.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

we have to realize that everything we know about history is farse. Especially American Indian history, which was written by Americans.

Russian, european, american, chinese, all have different interpretations of events.

COncerning the OP, the indian chief may not have signed anything. Matter of fact, I can tell you for a fact he didnt sign anything. You are basing your proofs on words of mouth, stories, and literature of hundreds years of age. This is silly.

I don't think he was implying it was the chief that agreed to it, not sure which "local governor" he's talking about there. I think he just meant the state governor though, IE "you can treat these people differently because we say so"; standard colonial brutality.

Our schools downplay the brutality but we do learn about it, or at least we used to. The achievement for Cherokee is a direct reference to some rather dark behavior from the US, representing an alternate history where it is averted.

Probably, the no trail of tears achievement should be allowed to Creek/Choctaw/Chickasaw/Seminole (if they're added) as well. Wiki article talks about Washington trying to "civilize" these nations, and in historical terms their societies did indeed adapt impressively quickly regardless of how accurate the wiki article is.

 

[balmung60]

Artyom, the OP clearly meant the governor of the state of Georgia, not the chief of the Cherokee. The Cherokee took it to court, and the highest court in the land told the governor of Georgia that he couldn't do that. Then Andrew Jackson, fearing secession and civil war, told the Supreme Court to sod off and the Cherokee and other natives in the area got forced out and thus began what would be known as the Trail of Tears.

 

[BritNavFan]

Ironically, in game, even in the last dates in which they appear, they're still in their crap-tastic tech group, still pagan, and still a native council.

You could report this as a bug on the bugs forum. It's a database issue so relatively easy to change. Maybe give suggestions for when you think they should be considered western tech and when you think they should be considered Christian (and which flavour of Christianity they should be).

 

[balmung60]

You could report this as a bug on the bugs forum. It's a database issue so relatively easy to change. Maybe give suggestions for when you think they should be considered western tech and when you think they should be considered Christian (and which flavour of Christianity they should be).

By 1776 or so, I'd probably give them Western tech/North American units/Protestant religion (western because they're westernized, native units because I dunno, and Protestant because their preferred form of Christianity fell somewhere under the Protestant umbrella.

 

[User4035]

Artyom, the OP clearly meant the governor of the state of Georgia, not the chief of the Cherokee. The Cherokee took it to court, and the highest court in the land told the governor of Georgia that he couldn't do that. Then Andrew Jackson, fearing secession and civil war, told the Supreme Court to sod off and the Cherokee and other natives in the area got forced out and thus began what would be known as the Trail of Tears.

This.
I wasn't sure if it was georgia, or virginia, or what. And I just haven't gotten around to researching the topic yet. 1800's isn't the area I studied so I don't tend to focus on it.


As for game mechanics...pffft, I won't even touch on that. That's paradox's job.
I just felt like making a thread showing that a 'westernization effect' did occur in the EU4 timeframe.

In context, westernization in regards to technology would be considered adopting similar institutions and ways of doing things as the European countries. Because these institutions is what is responsible for advancement in technology and industry. Schools and universities, laws that protect property and encourage trade, etc... That way your society starts to produce their own scientists, inventors. Their own business's and entrepreneurs.
Some cultures resist is more than others depending on their traditions and ways of doing things.

The guns might be the same in china as in Europe but the tactics involved in using them are different.
And trading for weapons and arms might put you on a level playing field but its not the same as producing the arms yourself.

 

[ahyangyi]

we have to realize that everything we know about history is farse. Especially American Indian history, which was written by Americans.

Russian, european, american, chinese, all have different interpretations of events.

Who do you mean by "we"?

 

[icedt729]

In a real-world sense "Westernization" doesn't mean much prior to industrialization. This is why Victoria 2 has a pretty good 'reform' mechanic and EU's has always been weird and arbitrary by comparison.

 

[DarkCruor]

In a real-world sense "Westernization" doesn't mean much prior to industrialization. This is why Victoria 2 has a pretty good 'reform' mechanic and EU's has always been weird and arbitrary by comparison.

Eh, Peter the Great's (and later Catherine's) was pretty changing to Russian society.

Now whether it should be just them keeping up in tech or what, is an argument. But I'd argue at least militarily they did enact similar reforms that France/Austria/Prussia did during the Napoleonic Wars (ones where they stopped relying on mercenaries and started adapting to 'total war'). And they even invented a lot of tactics not seen before during that period. And there were incidents of them winning even against France and other similarly strong enemies with equal amounts of troops which simply can't really be done in game (as in if they went and got their historical ideas) without a 6/6/6 general vs a nobody or if they started the battle with half morale or some shit. As Russia, I mean.