Paradox, please real Westernization

[Magean]

Usually there are two broad sides in the "why did the West dominate" debate : one that emphasizes cultural and religious features fostering progress in the West while hampering elsewhere (Niall Ferguson and the likes), and another one focusing on institutional differences disentivizing innovation or capital accumulation in the Rest, while holding all human beings regardless of culture/religion as rational economic agents concerned with the betterment of their material conditions.

Both views hold true to some extent, I don't see how one could be discarded completely. Yes, modern Europe had religious narrowmindedness but the rise of the West broadly coincides with a loosening of the intellectual grip of those priests/clergymen that opposed new ideas the most. Add to that the printing press, the overall rise in literacy, especially in protestant country (by the end of the XVIIIth century, the German male population was about 50% literate, same for Englishmen ; some catholic regions such as the North of France followed closely while the Southernmost parts of Europe really lagged behind).

 

[LordPavel]

(...) the rise of the West broadly coincides with a loosening of the intellectual grip of those priests/clergymen that opposed new ideas the most. Add to that the printing press (...)

Funny, you talk about intellectual grip of priests, and in the next sentence, you talk about the printing press, make with the help of priests (Gutenberg Bible). The raise of the europeen mind start in Rome, in the pope city. It was not a chance. During few centuries, the priest teach, learn, and write for europeans. And they was good.
Today, they are ''archaic'' for science, but in the past, they was efficient.

 

[DukeofSerbia]

Joint stock companies, perpetual commercial institutions, vast amounts of book keeping developments, local government and municipalities, etc.

All of the Asian empires failed -- I mean catastrophically failed -- to mimic European developments in these areas. Their attempts to westernize usually involved more centralization and weaker institutions. The qing, mughals, ottomans and even Russians were mired in corruption, waste, weak property rights and ineffective economic outputs.

You mean just like Spain, Portugal, Two Sicilies... Ah, famous PIIGS. Nothing changed.

How many times Spain defaulted under Philip II and after him? I don't even understand why is Spain Western technology even in later period of game?

When serfdom was abolished in European countries?

 

[Magean]

Funny, you talk about intellectual grip of priests, and in the next sentence, you talk about the printing press, make with the help of priests (Gutenberg Bible). The raise of the europeen mind start in Rome, in the pope city. It was not a chance. During few centuries, the priest teach, learn, and write for europeans. And they was good.
Today, they are ''archaic'' for science, but in the past, they was efficient.

I said "those priests" which, if I'm not mistaken (I'm not a native English speaker) does not refer to the clergy as a whole, but to a specific fraction of the group.

 

[grommile]

When serfdom was abolished in European countries?

Which European countries? The answer varies quite widely, and of course there's the distinction between "serfdom is economically insignificant", "there are no serfs", and "serfdom is no longer a lawfully defined status for a person".

 

[zsImmortal]

Which European countries? The answer varies quite widely, and of course there's the distinction between "serfdom is economically insignificant", "there are no serfs", and "serfdom is no longer a lawfully defined status for a person".

Well serfdom in Eastern Europe was prevalent well late into the EU4 timeline. It wasn't very relevant past the Rhineland from the early part of the game on. The main issue in these discussions is that so much of the perspective of the East in this timeline is mired in myth and Orientalism.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Garbage. Europe had plenty of theocracy and religious mumbo-jumbo.

The problem with the Middle East was far more complicated. But in short, unlike Europe, Asia was dominated by sprawling empires which failed to provide effective public goods, without which, businesses remained ephemeral and small, hampering capital accumulation at a time when new technologies were highly capital intensive.

This line of thinking that those silly Asians were just so enamoured with their religious stuff that they failed to research scientific things is child-like reading of history. People generally want to improve their lots in life: there has to be a reason why they couldn't do it.

Please site some examples in Islamic domain in that period where care was taken to open up universities which were to impart scientific knowledge and not theocracy. This "Garbage" are concluded by famous historian Svat Soucek and Archibald R Lewis. I am just a reader.

Renaissace had broken majority of religious mumbo-jumbo in Europe and it was turning into a society of free thinkers.

As far as India is concerned, the mightiest ruler of the Mughal empire Auranjeb died in 1706 and even after their disintegration, Maratha, Mysore, Deccan, Punjab remained quite prominent having enough coffers to invest in technology. And business class had always remained very prominent and effective in India with very strong business ties with Red Sea throughout Mughal and Maratha period. It was the effectiveness and greed of Merchant class that paved a smoother way for the East India Company in Indian polity. (Well that is a huge separate topic).

 

[paulatreides0]

Please site some examples in Islamic domain in that period where care was taken to open up universities which were to impart scientific knowledge and not theocracy. This "Garbage" are concluded by famous historian Svat Soucek and Archibald R Lewis. I am just a reader.

Pretty sure the Ottomans did pretty well in education and research, seeing as how they kept up with, and even beat out, Europe for several centuries whilst most of the Islamic world dragged behind (for a multitude of reasons too, and not just the silly "Islam hates knowledge" argument).

Renaissace had broken majority of religious mumbo-jumbo in Europe and it was turning into a society of free thinkers.

No. That's a myth - a popular myth, but a myth nonetheless. The Reinassance didn't see a huge jump forward in the amount of science and research done from what had happened before until nearing its end. Actually, quite the opposite happened. Early on, scientific progress in the Renaissance actually slowed quite significantly than what had been going on before it. And even then, the 16th century mainly saw a lot of rediscovery of old works (as in works from Greece and Rome), most of the "new" work and science and discoveries weren't really made until the 17th century.

The truth of the matter is that people like to see the Renaissance as a period of scientific revolution, but it really wasn't. It was a period of artistic and philosophical revolution, but the benefits to science were yielded so much later that to ignore the plethora of other contributing factors would be foolish.

 

[Jango40]

While I agree that EU4 westernization is too easy, EU3's system was ABSOLUTELY horrid. You could basically never reach western tech if you were Chinese/below and all the stages required to finally reach western were always completely wrecking your nation. It was barely possible to succeed.

 

[frolix42]

This line of thinking that those silly Asians were just so enamoured with their religious stuff that they failed to research scientific things is child-like reading of history. People generally want to improve their lots in life: there has to be a reason why they couldn't do it.

That's a perceptive point. The historian Angus Maddison was widely recognized as a leading expert on historical world development. So much as we can pinpoint reasons why China fell behind technologically, most scholarship concludes that it had less to do with it's religion but with bureaucracy.

There were some positive effects of the Ming/Qing bureaucracy.

However this kind of Technology doesn't translate well into the kind of things we want to do in EU4, that is conquer, colonize and crush people overseas. These agricultural advancements caused the Chinese population during the EU4 time-frame to boom, which obfuscates the fact that China fell behind Europe in overall per-capita productivity.

A different kind of malaise was effecting India during the same period, for different reasons.

The main engine for technological development during the EU4 period was the formation of a global trade network. If I were, in turn, to pinpoint the reason why Western Europe pulled technologically ahead of East Asia, it would be the fact that the Europeans were the drivers of the new global trade order, which the Chinese consciously opted out of.

Reducing technological trends to a general reason (China fell behind because bureaucracy, Europe surged ahead because of trade) is simplistic. There are many other reasons than the ones put forward by A. Maddison that I chose to cite. What is indisputable is that West-Europe did surge ahead of the ROTW. The trend is most noticeable after 1820, but it began much earlier.

http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/oriindex.htm

One other thing to keep in mind as a corollary, it's not amazing or mind-blowing that Europeans were generally the most advanced region on the planet between 1550 - 1950. This is the blink of an eye in terms of World History. This is roughly the same amount of time that the Song Dynasty was the most advanced region of the world. It's significantly less than the amount of time the Assyrians were ascendant during the Bronze and Iron Ages.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Pretty sure the Ottomans did pretty well in education and research, seeing as how they kept up with, and even beat out, Europe for several centuries whilst most of the Islamic world dragged behind (for a multitude of reasons too, and not just the silly "Islam hates knowledge" argument).



No. That's a myth - a popular myth, but a myth nonetheless. The Reinassance didn't see a huge jump forward in the amount of science and research done from what had happened before until nearing its end. Actually, quite the opposite happened. Early on, scientific progress in the Renaissance actually slowed quite significantly than what had been going on before it. And even then, the 16th century mainly saw a lot of rediscovery of old works (as in works from Greece and Rome), most of the "new" work and science and discoveries weren't really made until the 17th century.

The truth of the matter is that people like to see the Renaissance as a period of scientific revolution, but it really wasn't. It was a period of artistic and philosophical revolution, but the benefits to science were yielded so much later that to ignore the plethora of other contributing factors would be foolish.

I would agree, the impact of the Renaissance could not be overnight. But it did pave way for the free thinkers being accepted in the society for generation to come. This is huge.
Still today, there are multiple corners of the world waiting for that to happen.

Furthermore, making a society acceptable to new ideas and encourage scientific knowledge (actual change in the society) and simply acquiring military know-how to cope upto neighbours' military might are two different things. As for Ottoman, before the early part of the nineteenth century, the ottoman state never accepted responsibility for the basic education of its citizens or subjects. Hence no formal system of public education then existed. The state trained some of its military and bureaucratic officials; the clergy instructed some of its own future members; but the education of non-official, non-clerical subjects was not seen as a public responsibility.

Up to the 17th century the Ottoman Empire was one of the most powerful countries in the world. Then it dramatically lost power because it did not keep up or better Europe’s scientific and technological improvements especially during the 18th century. Since development of the Empire’s army was top priority during this period, many French officers were brought in to help the Ottomans modernize the army. For a long time the Empire continued to benefit from importing officers, experts, and scientists, mostly from Europe and mostly for its army. Officers from Europe were used in its new military schools. In 1735, a new artillery school was established and a Frenchman Alexander Comte de Bonneval, was named administrator. Some forty years later in 1773 during the time of Ottoman Sultan Mustafa III, Muhendishane-i Bahr-i Humayun, the Royal School of Naval Engineering, was established to educate chart masters and ship builders. During its formative years it was supervised by Baron de Tott, a French expatriate military officer. Furthermore, in 1795 Muhendishane-i Berr-i Humayun, the Royal School of Military Engineering was established to educate technical specialists. In addition to Baron de Tott many other staff were brought in from foreign countries to modernize the army and to teach at those schools. Among these were Englishman Kampell Mustafa, a convert to Islam; Frenchmen Kermorvan Le Roi et du Reste (naval engineering); Major Lafitte Clavet and Capt. Monier (military and civil engineering); Francois Petolin (cannon testing); Capt. Saint-Remy (artillery); and Tondul (astronomy).

 

[ShinEmperor]

Just wanted to chime in, but generally, technology in EU4 is definitely Eurocentric. While Europeans were in advanced in some ways, they were not advanced in others. The problem, is that the only metrics that "matter" in game are those favorable to European powers. Essentially anything that's about colonialism and war Europe did very well. However, Europeans were far behind the curb when it came to agriculture and administratively managing their nations.

If EU is to make any sense it should impose restrictions on technology. The way the current game is designed is that the technology bonus is in essence a "racial" trait. That Europe has this inherent advantage in technology. When in reality, technological progress is nurtured. So, with the current mechanics in EU4... Europe could could be completely overrun by Eastern powers (Poland and Ottomans) but still somehow maintain a technological advantage because... "They're Western Europeans"... Which is... a little unrealistic in my view.

The tech system should work the way it actually does. Either you can conquer someone who is more advanced and integrate their technologies. (For example a lot of the Renaissance was feuled by spoils from the Crusades) OR... a nation gets bonuses to tech if they either become more open minded (tolerance or innovative ideas) or if they nurture trade which,which has a habit of spreading technology around. At a bare minimum, those systems would be more engaging for the player and it would provide a variety of ways for players to engage other nations.

I mean, would any nation still be backwards if they're capable of conquering the most advanced nations on the planet? Wouldn't some of the technology "slip into the hands" of those new conquerors? Isn't history full of examples of this?

Also, when considering the New World. In some instances, the nations lost not because of technology or a will to fight. It was disease that did them in and other elements at play. The Inca fielded something like 80,000 men... had their king not been enthralled by the Spanish... they would have overrun that small Spanish force in no time and history is full of loads of victories that in EU are attributed to tech, but in reality were more about circumstance. But the game design tries to wedge all gameplay into very specific circumstances... which makes no sense in a sandbox like EU4...

There's this sort of oversimplification with tech in Eu4 and it really doesn't make sense when you look at many specific circumstances in history. But I guess I'm asking too much of a game whose core metrics for native peoples is Ferocity and Aggressiveness...

 

[Magean]

I mean, would any nation still be backwards if they're capable of conquering the most advanced nations on the planet? Wouldn't some of the technology "slip into the hands" of those new conquerors? Isn't history full of examples of this?

Well, this is what the game models as westernization... if you conquer Western provinces, you can improve your tech group.

 

[Atlantians]

Chinese technology should give cheaper administrative technology compared to what their diplo/mil tech costs.

Additionally, they should have a large discount to military development of their provinces.

This is roughly the same amount of time that the Song Dynasty was the most advanced region of the world. It's significantly less than the amount of time the Assyrians were ascendant during the Bronze and Iron Ages.

And it was the Mongols who destroyed the Song.

Lets not forgot how deeply the Mongols devastated eastern society.

The West never experienced the devastation the east did.

 

[joe9594]

Just wanted to chime in, but generally, technology in EU4 is definitely Eurocentric. While Europeans were in advanced in some ways, they were not advanced in others. The problem, is that the only metrics that "matter" in game are those favorable to European powers. Essentially anything that's about colonialism and war Europe did very well. However, Europeans were far behind the curb when it came to agriculture and administratively managing their nations.

If EU is to make any sense it should impose restrictions on technology. The way the current game is designed is that the technology bonus is in essence a "racial" trait. That Europe has this inherent advantage in technology. When in reality, technological progress is nurtured. So, with the current mechanics in EU4... Europe could could be completely overrun by Eastern powers (Poland and Ottomans) but still somehow maintain a technological advantage because... "They're Western Europeans"... Which is... a little unrealistic in my view.

The tech system should work the way it actually does. Either you can conquer someone who is more advanced and integrate their technologies. (For example a lot of the Renaissance was feuled by spoils from the Crusades) OR... a nation gets bonuses to tech if they either become more open minded (tolerance or innovative ideas) or if they nurture trade which,which has a habit of spreading technology around. At a bare minimum, those systems would be more engaging for the player and it would provide a variety of ways for players to engage other nations.

I mean, would any nation still be backwards if they're capable of conquering the most advanced nations on the planet? Wouldn't some of the technology "slip into the hands" of those new conquerors? Isn't history full of examples of this?

Also, when considering the New World. In some instances, the nations lost not because of technology or a will to fight. It was disease that did them in and other elements at play. The Inca fielded something like 80,000 men... had their king not been enthralled by the Spanish... they would have overrun that small Spanish force in no time and history is full of loads of victories that in EU are attributed to tech, but in reality were more about circumstance. But the game design tries to wedge all gameplay into very specific circumstances... which makes no sense in a sandbox like EU4...

There's this sort of oversimplification with tech in Eu4 and it really doesn't make sense when you look at many specific circumstances in history. But I guess I'm asking too much of a game whose core metrics for native peoples is Ferocity and Aggressiveness...

The big problem with a system where enlightened activities increase technological progress is that there is really no incentive for Human players to act anything like historical actors did. The mechanics need to present players with choices that are in some way representative of those faced by rulers of the period and where it makes at least some sense to do the same kind of things they did. A system where you have to do a specific set of things because that is an all around superior option does not represent a choice and does not add anything to the game strategically.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would not care if they dumped westernization except by event. BUUUUUT.

I would want the tech level penalties drastically lowered in most cases down to no more than 25% maybe 30%. IRL even a difference of a few % over 3-4 centuries made a massive difference let alone 0-60% difference for mos of the world (not that worried about Americans having huge penalties).

If they dump westernization they need to sort that out, the ease of shipping tens of thousands of troops around the world and perhap inferior units and lack of development i places like Persia,

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

How about this? We get rid of Westernization, but we also get rid of the Overseas Expansion and Colonial Expansion casi belli.

 

[marcelteaching]

It is also confusing. The tooltips do NOT explain which elements you are lacking to westernize.
Want to see something like :

• Neighbouring or Conquered Territory that belongs to "Western" Technology group - YES
• Connecting province needs to be a Core Province - YES
• Your province needs to be a core Province - YES
• Connecting province must not be a Trading Company - NO
• At least seven techs behind - NO

 

[Oldpara]

What is annoying you cannot set up someone as a rival if technology group gap is too big (similar to vassalization) no matter what real technology level is.

So if you are Indian superpower, leading in technologies, cash and soldiers you cannot set your Rivals form Western Tech group until you westernize.

 

[frolix42]

And it was the Mongols who destroyed the Song.

Lets not forgot how deeply the Mongols devastated eastern society.

The West never experienced the devastation the east did.

This is true. Song was in severe decline by 1200, overrun by their other northern neighbors the Jurchen. There was also a splinter state in Western Xia, which was the smallest of the three and the first to fall to the Mongols.

China in 1200 AD

What I think is illustrative about the Mongol conquest of China is how they imported Military Technology to overcome both the Jin and Song dynasties. Prior to coming into China with ambitions of conquest, as a Steppe Horde Genghis Khan and his compatriots were really bad at siege warfare. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that Mongol cultural traditions in warfare didn't have razing giant cities in it's purview (yet), but in order to conquer Jin and Song they needed to gain knowledge.

Fortunately (for ambitious Mongolians) Genghis Khan had some smart people around him who suggested using the knowledge of Chinese Engineers they captured from Western Xia, which was successful in reducing the Northern cities. Once the Jin Dynasty fell, which took decades, the remnants of the Song Dynasty had even more impressive cities with more impressive walls. Fortunately for Genghis Khan's sons they had also conquered Persia and could import engineers such as Al al-Din and Ismal who had knowledge of even more advanced siege equipment such as counter-weight trebuchets.

How this relates to EU4. When the Europeans first arrived in China, it was analogous to Mongol scouts arriving at the borders of China for the first time. In 1200 it may seem like Song, Jurchen and W. Xia were far ahead of the Mongols Technologically, in reality Mongol practices, institutions and flexibility gave them the advantage over the next century. When the Portuguese arrived in 1519, the Chinese were uninterested in Western Tech, while the Portuguese were interesting in anything and everything. With 20/20 hindsight everyone knows that China's disinterest in the West was a terrible long-term decision, but that decision was made before the start of EU4. To undo it should be very difficult, it should probably be way more difficult than it is currently.