Rant on unreal westernization...

[TheMeInTeam]

It wasn't a horde, so it didn't rely on doomstacks

It's hard to read this and conclude that the person writing it is talking about real history, but in the previous paragraph you stated you were. It's also crazy to claim that nations like Mughals or Qing didn't innovate. Even the hordes innovated (it was partly the reason they were so successful for a while), but they didn't have the resources in that territory to hold up. When they did have the resources, we see paradox suddenly stop calling them "hordes" and just pretend they "reformed or something" and happened to become two of the strongest/most land area captured nations in the period.

Shipping forces like 30k to India would have gotten any European power slaughtered for the majority of the time period, if not all of it. They may or may not have had significant progress in India, but they'd be a sitting duck back home, either to direct invasion or foreign-funded overthrows.

As you say, if you're going to allow arcade-mode mass shipping, then other areas of the world need something that compensates that ability.

 

[Denkt]

UK copied the rocket design from Indian forces in late 1700s and then used it during the Napoleon war, even so late Europe technology advantage was not absolute.
Many ship designs was copied from Barbary Pirates who probably should belong in the western technology group as much as Spain and Portugal.

Morocco defeated both Portgual and Ottomans then both countries was close or in their absolute peek of power and then destroyed the powerful Songhai empire. In game their technology group is muslim which is ridiculous, western at start would be the most historical correct choice here like with the pirates.

Many native americans did quickly adopt to the european presence and was a much much more important part in the region then shown in the game, definitely on par with the colonial armies as far as fighting ability is concerned so westernization was very possible in the time frame and did not have to take long time.

If a country had to they could very quickly have adopted western weaponry, ship building was done by specialists who did sometimes work for non European countries such as Japan ordered construction of Portuguese type Galleons. Western technology advantage was never as big as shown in the game, and in the game westernization mean adopt western technology not adopt western culture.

 

[PhroX]

What a qualification. It's hard for me to be outraged when the game gets so much closer to history than, well anything else ever. Sid Meier's Civ? Nope. Age of Renaissance the board game? Maybe. Sort of. Age of Empires? Not a chance. Earliest WC, and those only happen because the game gets gamed rather than RP'd, is 60+ years later than "the mid-17th century," and that is an unusual achievement even a century later.

I wasn't using that qualifier to object to anything in the game. I was using it to object to those claiming that Europe was dominant during the time period covered by the game, when for the majority of said time period, they clearly weren't.

 

[BritNavFan]

Even the hordes innovated

Even the hordes? You've been playing EU too long. The hordes were as innovative as anyone.

And, the "westernization" rules in the current version of the game are completely stupid. Bad for game play, bad for following history, bad for sandbox play, bad for everything.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Even the hordes? You've been playing EU too long. The hordes were as innovative as anyone.

And, the "westernization" rules in the current version of the game are completely stupid. Bad for game play, bad for following history, bad for sandbox play, bad for everything.

I was arguing from his terms.

Prior to this period the hordes were markedly more innovative (and more willing to "borrow" technology" than a lot of European nations. At the start of the period their fragmented nature and poor economic base did some of them no favors. Others weren't actually nomadic in bulk any longer and paradox just makes them "nomad" because reasons.

I don't know what you can do with westernization without simply removing most of the tech disparity (and completely re-balancing/revamping new world) or dumping monarch points entirely.

 

[CNY10000]

UK copied the rocket design from Indian forces in late 1700s and then used it during the Napoleon war, even so late Europe technology advantage was not absolute.
Many ship designs was copied from Barbary Pirates who probably should belong in the western technology group as much as Spain and Portugal.

These details cannot be the reasons for that India and Barbary are more advanced than Europe in late era. Although if we could represent those detailed tech advantage would be great, in order to implement what you are suggesting, we have to get rid of the current tech system entirely and make a tech tree where every detail on the design of muskets, ships, cannon, and etc. are all represented. European absolute dominance in late EU4 era doesn't mean Europe is more advanced on every single detail.

Morocco defeated both Portgual and Ottomans then both countries was close or in their absolute peek of power and then destroyed the powerful Songhai empire. In game their technology group is muslim which is ridiculous, western at start would be the most historical correct choice here like with the pirates.

I have no idea with that war, but Portugal was never a nation with plenty of manpower. That Morocco defeated Portugal is not the evidence for technology advantage. Also, Portal did manage to get quite a bunch of land from Morroco.

Many native americans did quickly adopt to the european presence and was a much much more important part in the region then shown in the game, definitely on par with the colonial armies as far as fighting ability is concerned so westernization was very possible in the time frame and did not have to take long time.

EU4 has already had neighbor bonus. Also, European is now sending their entire troops to America, which means, if natives were still significant, it would be ridiculous. It is not that natives need buff, but we need actual supply system in place.

If a country had to they could very quickly have adopted western weaponry, ship building was done by specialists who did sometimes work for non European countries such as Japan ordered construction of Portuguese type Galleons. Western technology advantage was never as big as shown in the game, and in the game westernization mean adopt western technology not adopt western culture.

Selling ships is already in the game.

 

[zbyrne]

Global impact is different from global dominance.

Before we continue, let's avoid an argument over definitions. Those aren't productive. State how you set "global dominance", what standards meet that terminology?

Realistically, it wasn't "Europe" that had global dominance in my eyes. It was specifically Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, and kind-of France with a few others having a presence. Russia to a lesser extent, but noting that it lost to Qing in the time period because there wasn't a well-established rail system to transport soldiers and goods across Siberia in the period, so their "dominance" by land in the eastern parts of their empire was limited during these years.

The other Europeans were mostly involved with affairs in Europe, not elsewhere. The biggest advantage to the colonials was naval. Armies in India could shoot you in 1700 no problem. GB won the area on turmoil, treachery, and politics...not on the strength of major force projection alone there. What kept them in control was their ability to ship goods to/from there and arm/train the populace on-site, plus incentives to local administrators in retaining them. This is consistently true for successful colonial conquests in the era; they required local turmoil and enough naval projection.

Well without getting into a definition argument once again, the nations you listed are Europe. Personally I don't consider Russia to be part of Europe, at least not really. The most Eastern part of it hugs the fringes of Europe. And ye, Britain (the whole of the British Isles, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands (you omitted them, and they're big), the HRE (in the sense that the emperor was also [briefly] king of Spain etc), the Papacy governing religions which spread across the globe, whereas other major religions did not. See I'd say all these Europeans had a major impact. Now that leaves the eastern countries (poland etc) and the smaller german princes but I'd still argue that Europe, was the dominant player.

I'd back this up with the claim that the Seven Years War is considered the first World War - yet it was primarily a conflict (or two/three parallel conflicts) between European nations (Britain France Prussia Austria Sweden Spain - and also Russia, my comment above aside), yet it resulted in fighting in the Americas, Philippines, India, Africa and obviously Europe.

 

[zbyrne]

They dominated the world more than Europeans did for the bulk of the time period covered by EUIV. Barring Meso- and Andean-South American (where the Spanish had some of the most outrageous luck imaginable), prior to around the mid 17th century, European influence outside Europe was limited to some relatively small colonies and some merchants. Not to mention, in terms of what actually mattered, the world was the regions dominated by those Empires I mentioned. They were where population, wealth and knowledge was centered. In 1444, if you were to say where the important parts of the world where, you would point at the arc from Turkey to China, passing through Persian, Transoxania and India. Even 150 years later, you would say the same.

See sorry, but I disagree. the Portuguese, followed by the Dutch, followed by the Brits, who would then go on to conquer / protectorate India, all muscled in on the Indian trade market, and they did son from 1502 onwards - four years after Vasco de Gama arrived there in the first place! The Europeans, within a really short time period, discovered a route to, became involved in and then dominated trade flowing from the East. And the trade flowing from the east, that they relied on, compared to previous centuries, continuously dwindled with the discovery of the new world - the triangle trade meant that raw materials came from Americas, were manufactured in Europe, and then sent to Africa, where they got slaves, to use in Americas to get raw materials. That was entirely the result of the African gold trade collapsing (Europeans causes that), but it meant that the traditional source of European goods - Africa, India, and the far East - were no longer relied on nearly as much. And the few things they couldn't get out of America - spices, they went off to the East Indies and set up colonies - I believe in the mid 1500s, so ye, within a hundred years of the game start. The Europeans, by coming to dominant world trade, started off by de-shackling themselves of dependence of old world nations for trade and goods, and becoming a major producer of trade goods. But it was comfortably before the end of the period (and beginning of Viccy 2) that Europeans successfully controlled the lot and began bullying these "empires" of yours into doing what they wanted. British control of India began in the 1750s - and ignoring the continued european presence since 1502 - which was won in the seven years war, the first world war, which was ultimately a squabble between Europeans - "Austria and Prussia are having a fight over Saxony, oh and by the way India, you belong to Britain now" - European Dominance

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well without getting into a definition argument once again, the nations you listed are Europe. Personally I don't consider Russia to be part of Europe, at least not really. The most Eastern part of it hugs the fringes of Europe. And ye, Britain (the whole of the British Isles, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands (you omitted them, and they're big), the HRE (in the sense that the emperor was also [briefly] king of Spain etc), the Papacy governing religions which spread across the globe, whereas other major religions did not. See I'd say all these Europeans had a major impact. Now that leaves the eastern countries (poland etc) and the smaller german princes but I'd still argue that Europe, was the dominant player.

I'd back this up with the claim that the Seven Years War is considered the first World War - yet it was primarily a conflict (or two/three parallel conflicts) between European nations (Britain France Prussia Austria Sweden Spain - and also Russia, my comment above aside), yet it resulted in fighting in the Americas, Philippines, India, Africa and obviously Europe.

The papal state, HRE, Scandinavia, Balkans, PLC, and Russia, which are non-trivial parts of history and a substantial chunk of Europe, were not doing anything that could be rationally construed as "global". NED had an impact, but not to the extent that the ones I listed did, "dominance" doesn't fit for them the same way as I was picturing it, but that's why I wanted to clarify what you meant.

@zbyrne:

Trade is not the same thing as dominating someone. If England tried to invade India during the height of the Mughals, they'd have failed terribly. They "dominated" precisely because of the instability in the region.

For most of the period, these "colonies" and trade companies were coastal-region setups for profit, not legitimate sovereignty of the area, because it was prohibitively expensive and risky for Europeans to try to enforce the latter, while succeeding wouldn't have given them much more than they were already getting.

 

[zbyrne]

The papal state, HRE, Scandinavia, Balkans, PLC, and Russia, which are non-trivial parts of history and a substantial chunk of Europe, were not doing anything that could be rationally construed as "global". NED had an impact, but not to the extent that the ones I listed did, "dominance" doesn't fit for them the same way as I was picturing it, but that's why I wanted to clarify what you meant.

@zbyrne:

Trade is not the same thing as dominating someone. If England tried to invade India during the height of the Mughals, they'd have failed terribly. They "dominated" precisely because of the instability in the region.

For most of the period, these "colonies" and trade companies were coastal-region setups for profit, not legitimate sovereignty of the area, because it was prohibitively expensive and risky for Europeans to try to enforce the latter, while succeeding wouldn't have given them much more than they were already getting.

Well again, I don't really consider Russia to be part of "Europe". I'd concede on Scandinavia and the PLC, but the Balkans, less so as they were part of the Ottoman empire, maybe nowadays because of the EU, but historically they've always felt at more of a remove from "Europe". Again, as I've already said, the HRE and it's rule over Spain, meant that it did have a hand in global affairs, Charles V passing laws affecting only the New World Spanish holdings. I also pointed out that the Papacy, in the spread of Catholicism over the world, had a hand.

But even if you don't buy the above, half of "Europe" colonised and established trade powers - yet their foreign policies were nearly only affected by their European peers. So the Seven Years War, (the first "world war") was a scrap between various European powers, yet it dragged plenty of non europeans, and non european theatres into the war too.

And not sure what you mean by the Mughal Empire comment - it did fall to England after all. You don't say when you mean when you say it's height, and it's all speculative - you couldn't prove it either way.

And finally, the empires and trade power are very much so valid forms of domination and European trade power, relative to the Indians, Chinese or Ottoman equivalents was superior in every way. Sorry but Europeans have had the dominant impact on the globe, and it started in our period.

There's a reason why the word Eurocentrism is a word, and there isn't a Chinacentrism, or Mughalcentrism. Because Europe, and what happened there, and was decided there, and a disproportionate impact over the globe.

 

[civfanatic]

I understand that they need to make the game playable for people that like playing non-Europeans, but the very essence of this period of history was European dominance and preeminence, and the game is even called Europa Universalis for christ sake. They even make the game historical in the Americas, because it's absolutely easy to conquer American territory (and not easy enough, actually, because the Spanish were able to conquer the entirety of the Incas in a single stroke), but completely ignores history in the old world by making Africans and Asians so readily willing to westernize. If you want to make the game more "playable" by having nations like China westernizing (which is just starting to seriously westernize today!), then don't be hypocritical and have the American bots so realistically noncompetitive with the Europeans.

I think that there should be some sort of "traditions" value that restricts the ability to westernize for nations that are absolutely different from western nations. Nations like Lithuania would be able to westernize much faster and with less stress, and nations like China or India wouldn't be able to westernize easily at all. Also, the larger the nation (population, territorial size, etc.) the more expensive it should be to westernize. That's right, westernization should not only cost a great deal of money, but should also be very expensive, even if the nations are smaller. Also, the westernization should bring about a great deal of unrest and revolt for nations whose traditions are more and more distant from western society (differentiated by tech groups). Anything that can make it more holistically realistic when it comes to westernization. I just think that this period is all about European domination, and that the westernization trend completely defies history on multiple levels, and I find it very annoying to play amidst all this muck.

First of all, regardless of what the game is called and what you erroneously think, most of the timeline covered by Europa Universalis was certainly NOT the period of "Western dominance and preeminence". That would be the 19th-20th centuries, which is covered by Victoria II.

Secondly, the Spaniards were able to conquer the Inca and the Aztecs only due to a great deal of dumb luck, cooperation by ambitious natives, and the fact that Mexico and Peru already had fairly sophisticated, centralized polities where killing/capturing the emperor meant that the entire state fell into your hands. Elsewhere, such as in modern-day Chile, the Spaniards failed to subjugate the native Mapuche, Huilliche, Picunche, and other peoples even after 300 years of conflict and tens of thousands of Spanish casulaties (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War).

Thirdly, having "Westernized" African and Asian states in the 17th-18th centuries is not so unreasonable as you seem to think, since several real-life states did adopt Western technology (particularly military technology) wholesale and began manufacturing Western firearms in large numbers. The Kingdom of Mysore in South India, for example, manufactured tens of thousands of flintlock muskets indigenously, and was able to defeat the British in several battles in the 18th century (they were ultimately defeated in 1799 only after the British East India Company allied themselves with other major Indian powers, in particular the Marathas and the Nizam of Hyderabad). Even many Sub-Saharan African polities like Benin, Dahomey, Asante, and the Yoruba city-states were manufacturing their own firearms and gunpowder by the 18th century. Therefore, I don't see anything extremely "ahistorical" about a few Asian or African states "westernizing" and being able to field armies with similar technology and organization to Western states during the time period in question (if we were talking about Vicky II, I would have a different opinion). What is far more "ahistorical" is the ridiculous nerfing of great powers like Ming China in 1444 or the Mughals in the 1600s (whose total income should be greater than all of Western Europe combined).

 

[civfanatic]

But even if you don't buy the above, half of "Europe" colonised and established trade powers - yet their foreign policies were nearly only affected by their European peers. So the Seven Years War, (the first "world war") was a scrap between various European powers, yet it dragged plenty of non europeans, and non european theatres into the war too.

And not sure what you mean by the Mughal Empire comment - it did fall to England after all. You don't say when you mean when you say it's height, and it's all speculative - you couldn't prove it either way.

The Mughal Empire never fell to "England" (I suppose you mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain, though that it wouldn't be true either). The British East India Company did not control any province in India (as opposed to a handful of forts and trading posts on land they bought from Indian rulers) until 1757, when the EIC won the "Battle" of Plassey and acquired de facto dominance over Bengal by placing their ally (Mir Jafar) on the throne. I use quotes around "battle" because it wasn't really a battle at all; the British had conspired with Mir Jafar and others in the Nawab's army before the armies even met on the battlefield, and these conspirators defected from the Nawab's army in the midst of the "battle", leading to their defeat. I would say that British skill in diplomacy and intrigue was a far more decisive factor in the conquest of India generally, especially in the early stages, than any great military supremacy (most soldiers in the British EIC were anyway native Indians drilled in European tactics, not unlike the infantry used in many contemporary Indian armies).

If we are talking about the Mughals specifically, the only time the Mughals and English met in combat was in the late 1680s, and that debacle resulted in a comprehensive defeat for the English East India Company (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child's_War). European powers simply lacked any ability to force demands on the Mughals while they still controlled a powerful, centralized empire encompassing North India.

 

[WeissRaben]

The Mughal Empire never fell to "England" (I suppose you mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain, though that it wouldn't be true either). The British East India Company did not control any province in India (as opposed to a handful of forts and trading posts on land they bought from Indian rulers) until 1757, when the EIC won the "Battle" of Plassey and acquired de facto dominance over Bengal by placing their ally (Mir Jafar) on the throne. I use quotes around "battle" because it wasn't really a battle at all; the British had conspired with Mir Jafar and others in the Nawab's army before the armies even met on the battlefield, and these conspirators defected from the Nawab's army in the midst of the "battle", leading to their defeat. I would say that British skill in diplomacy and intrigue was a far more decisive factor in the conquest of India generally, especially in the early stages, than any great military supremacy (most soldiers in the British EIC were anyway native Indians drilled in European tactics, not unlike the infantry used in many contemporary Indian armies).

Plassey is mostly void as a "SUPERIORITY!" example mostly because it ended as a strategical defeat - the Bengal-French forces retreated with some losses, surely much superior than those of the British but still small on the whole (500 out of a army of 62 thousand), especially when counting one dead general and three defecting to the British. Still, it keeps being quoted. I wonder if they think the Bengal charged with spears machinegun nests.

Excellent analysis, yes.

 

[moorsonthecoast]

This thread, TLDR: There are tons of reasons why it would be impossible to do a world conquest from 1444 Europe given 350ish years.

So, a good question: Do you want a game where it is possible to do a one-tag world conquest? If so, you need some unhistory somewhere.

 

[zbyrne]

First of all, regardless of what the game is called and what you erroneously think, most of the timeline covered by Europa Universalis was certainly NOT the period of "Western dominance and preeminence". That would be the 19th-20th centuries, which is covered by Victoria II.

Secondly, the Spaniards were able to conquer the Inca and the Aztecs only due to a great deal of dumb luck, cooperation by ambitious natives, and the fact that Mexico and Peru already had fairly sophisticated, centralized polities where killing/capturing the emperor meant that the entire state fell into your hands. Elsewhere, such as in modern-day Chile, the Spaniards failed to subjugate the native Mapuche, Huilliche, Picunche, and other peoples even after 300 years of conflict and tens of thousands of Spanish casulaties (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War).

Thirdly, having "Westernized" African and Asian states in the 17th-18th centuries is not so unreasonable as you seem to think, since several real-life states did adopt Western technology (particularly military technology) wholesale and began manufacturing Western firearms in large numbers. The Kingdom of Mysore in South India, for example, manufactured tens of thousands of flintlock muskets indigenously, and was able to defeat the British in several battles in the 18th century (they were ultimately defeated in 1799 only after the British East India Company allied themselves with other major Indian powers, in particular the Marathas and the Nizam of Hyderabad). Even many Sub-Saharan African polities like Benin, Dahomey, Asante, and the Yoruba city-states were manufacturing their own firearms and gunpowder by the 18th century. Therefore, I don't see anything extremely "ahistorical" about a few Asian or African states "westernizing" and being able to field armies with similar technology and organization to Western states during the time period in question (if we were talking about Vicky II, I would have a different opinion). What is far more "ahistorical" is the ridiculous nerfing of great powers like Ming China in 1444 or the Mughals in the 1600s (whose total income should be greater than all of Western Europe combined).

Right well, regardless of whether it happened through either "dumb luck" or by design, all that really matters is they did actually conquer them, and thus exerted pretty much complete control over a continent and a half. Saying it was down to "dumb luck" is a cop out of history - hell loads of important shit was down to "dumb luck", but that doesn't reduce the significance of that happening.

But considering I am making the point that it was Europe which exerted global influence and dominance during the period - as opposed to the Chinese or the Mughals, well I maintain it remains to be true. I'm not actually saying that Europe, or anyone nation in Europe was the "greatest" country, considering the parameters by which might measure that are picked by the person putting forward their argument to entirely suit said argument. I'm saying that Europe exerted more influence over the globe in a global sense than anyone else, and had massive trade dominance, so much so it completely reversed it's "lowly"position in the world to the central and dominant position. Furthermore, pretty much all the Empires which Europe used to dominate the subsequent 19th and 20th Centuries were built in this time period, not the subsequent one, so really you're only making the argument that Europe's preeminence came about in the 19th and 20th centuries is only you pointing out that period was the final height, before the collapse of said empires. And really, and further to my point, the 19th and 20th Centuries were not dominated by Europe, but by Britain. Before EU4's period is up, Spain has lost much of her Empire, as have the Dutch and to a lesser extent the French too. Now they're not completely gone, but the height's of their powers have definitely waned. It is Britain which truly goes on to dominant that subsequent period, rather than Europe as a whole.

Finally I'd make the following argument - Europe truly dominated and influenced 5 of the 7 world continents. Now we can obviously discard Antarctica here, so 5 of the 6, during this time period, again in a global sense. Obviously Europe dominated itself - but it also dominated North and South America. It dominated Oceania too, and finally Africa. Now no doubt you'd say "Ha! Europe didn't do anything to Africa until the Scramble for Africa until the 18th century - but if you think about it, Africa was entirely insular in this period, and had no global impact. Europe's limited involvement was it's only global activity, and Europe had lasting impact on the continent, which only Europe can be credited as responsible - namely the triangular trade, which due solely to European market demands, effectively killed the Gold trade, and replaced it with slavery, which was carried out by Africans themselves in order to produce a needed global trade good. Now only Asia was not dominated by the Europeans in this period (even though the East Indies had been thoroughly subdued under various European trade outfits) and India was too subdued under British rule, but China remained largely unaffected. For about twenty years.

Again, my argument isn't Europe was "stronger" or "better" or anything along those lines, than China, or India, just that Europe dominated and influenced the globe in a way that these other nations or regions did not, and these strong or big nations were thus in turn either subdued in the time period themselves, or shortly afterwards, which finally led to Europe (or Britain really) height in subsequent centuries.

 

[civfanatic]

Plassey is mostly void as a "SUPERIORITY!" example mostly because it ended as a strategical defeat - the Bengal-French forces retreated with some losses, surely much superior than those of the British but still small on the whole (500 out of a army of 62 thousand), especially when counting one dead general and three defecting to the British. Still, it keeps being quoted. I wonder if they think the Bengal charged with spears machinegun nests.

Excellent analysis, yes.

I think people who are ignorant of history take examples of battles from the age of late 19th century imperialism (like the Battle of Omdurman, where the British massacred over 10,000 Sudanese with Maxim guns while losing only 47 of their own men) and project that onto the 17th and 18th centuries, where such victories should be practically impossible. In the 1700s, the armies of the British EIC and those of native Indian princes were not that different in terms of technology. The most advanced Indian armies like Mysore had completely phased out matchlocks by then and equipped their armies wholesale with modern flintlock muskets. They also came up with very innovative gunpowder weapons like rocket artillery, which were later adopted by the British as Congreve rockets.

 

[civfanatic]

Right well, regardless of whether it happened through either "dumb luck" or by design, all that really matters is they did actually conquer them, and thus exerted pretty much complete control over a continent and a half. Saying it was down to "dumb luck" is a cop out of history - hell loads of important shit was down to "dumb luck", but that doesn't reduce the significance of that happening.

The Spanish conquests of central Mexico and Peru were entirely due to dumb luck and fortuitous circumstances, facilitated in large part by serious blunders by native rulers (like Atahualpa's decision to appear in person before Pizarro with unarmed retainers, leading to his capture), as well as devastating diseases like smallpox. The former should be easily preventable by a human player with the benefit of hindsight (you can't model that in EU anyway), and the latter would have happened even if some guys from Mali had landed in Mexico. Nietzscheian hallucinations of "conquistador supermen" aside, it is difficult to see what special characteristics of the Spanish in particular enabled this "conquest" to take place. If the Spaniards possessed such overwhelming military superiority over native Amerindians, they should have been able to replicate these conquests in places like southern Chile or northern Mexico with ease (given that the peoples in these regions were at a generally lower level of development than those of central Mexico or Peru), but they failed to do so even with extensive native allies and support (the Spaniards were defeated in northern Mexico during the Chichimeca War and in Chile during the Arauco War). In the case of northern Mexico, pacification and integration was achieved in a largely peaceful fashion by Roman Catholic missionaries, not by some great Spanish military superiority (the Spaniards were defeated when they tried to use force). In the case of Mapuche territories in southern Chile, pacification wasn't achieved until the late 19th century by the modern army of independent Chile.

But considering I am making the point that it was Europe which exerted global influence and dominance during the period - as opposed to the Chinese or the Mughals, well I maintain it remains to be true. I'm not actually saying that Europe, or anyone nation in Europe was the "greatest" country, considering the parameters by which might measure that are picked by the person putting forward their argument to entirely suit said argument. I'm saying that Europe exerted more influence over the globe in a global sense than anyone else, and had massive trade dominance, so much so it completely reversed it's "lowly"position in the world to the central and dominant position. Furthermore, pretty much all the Empires which Europe used to dominate the subsequent 19th and 20th Centuries were built in this time period, not the subsequent one, so really you're only making the argument that Europe's preeminence came about in the 19th and 20th centuries is only you pointing out that period was the final height, before the collapse of said empires. And really, and further to my point, the 19th and 20th Centuries were not dominated by Europe, but by Britain. Before EU4's period is up, Spain has lost much of her Empire, as have the Dutch and to a lesser extent the French too. Now they're not completely gone, but the height's of their powers have definitely waned. It is Britain which truly goes on to dominant that subsequent period, rather than Europe as a whole.

I don't think anyone denies that European states, beginning with Portugal, were the first to establish trade contacts on a truly global scale, and consequently had much wider influence on different parts of the globe than polities like Vijayanagar or Safavid Iran. Unfortunately, this is completely irrelevant to the premise of the OP, which is specifically about Western superiority and dominance during the period covered by EU4. There was no European domination whatsoever over Asia and Africa as a whole for the duration of EU4, and Europe did not occupy the "central and dominant position". The Mughals even in 1700 had a far greater income than all of Western Europe combined, but by 1900 Western Europe had industrialized and had far surpassed India in all economic parameters. Ergo, Western dominance and Eurocentrism belongs in Vicky II, rather than in EU4.

Finally I'd make the following argument - Europe truly dominated and influenced 5 of the 7 world continents. Now we can obviously discard Antarctica here, so 5 of the 6, during this time period, again in a global sense.

For the timeline of EU4, the only continents dominated by Europe besides Europe itself were those of the New World. There was no European domination over Asia or Africa as a whole during this period.

 

[WeissRaben]

Right well, regardless of whether it happened through either "dumb luck" or by design, all that really matters is they did actually conquer them, and thus exerted pretty much complete control over a continent and a half. Saying it was down to "dumb luck" is a cop out of history - hell loads of important shit was down to "dumb luck", but that doesn't reduce the significance of that happening.

No, it is not. No, wait. It is not strong enough.
Hell, no. It is not.

One needs to look at history, recognize the reasons that led to the facts and the effect these facts had as reasons for further events. Refusing to recognize a situation as "lucky" or "unlucky" means refusing to acknowledge the actual status of the world before, during and after an event; because, for an event not to be relying on fortune, it needs to rely on solid causes. If these causes do not exist, you are projecting them in existence - and, as such, distorting history.

 

[Ame]

So to summarize op

I chose one of the easiest countries in the game (a western country in position to colonize asia) and I am complaining that a series of very easy conquests could become difficult?

Am I missing something?

You could easily knock of any small Asian nation; any large one will take a larger effort but is still easily conquered.

Only the ones with +coring costs ideas are a problem and that is related to MP not difficulty.

 

[FrigidSoul]

No, it is not. No, wait. It is not strong enough.
Hell, no. It is not.

One needs to look at history, recognize the reasons that led to the facts and the effect these facts had as reasons for further events. Refusing to recognize a situation as "lucky" or "unlucky" means refusing to acknowledge the actual status of the world before, during and after an event; because, for an event not to be relying on fortune, it needs to rely on solid causes. If these causes do not exist, you are projecting them in existence - and, as such, distorting history.

You can acknowledge that the circumstances were lucky without implicitly dismissing the absolutely mind-boggling audacity and skill of people like Pizarro and Cortes. Ruthless, even monstrous, though they may have been, they were extraordinary.