You think that Japan was already modernized by the time it invaded China and Korea, yet you also disagree with my assertion that 200 years for westernizationis too long?
Now I'm really lost.
Rant on unreal westernization...
- Thread starter randy47
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Now I'm really lost.
You think that Japan was already modernized by the time it invaded China and Korea, yet you also disagree with my assertion that 200 years for westernizationis too long?
You got it wrong. I wasn't saying the Toyotomi Hideyoshi invasion to Korea in 1500s, when Japan was the loser of the war. I was saying the late 19th centry Japanese-Qing war and the gradual annexation of Korea at that time.
Here is the Wiki pages of the war I am talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sino-Japanese_War
Here is the Wiki page of the war I am NOT talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592–98)
No, I got it, Sino-Japanese War and all that. What I don't get is how you can disagree that 200 year westernization periods are too long on one hand and then use 1884 as your benchmark of when Japan westernized, as that would be even less time to westernize (26 years) than I gave them. There's either a miscommunication (which I suspect is the case) or your position is completely inconsistent (which seems unlikely, but what do I know?).
- 1
I am regarding the firearm introduction from Europe in 16th centry as the start of westernization, and the end of Boshin Sensou as the complete of westernization. It is about 300 years in history, but there should be some flexibility in game so I said 200 years.
- 7
Better logistics was suggested since the game was released
At this point either Pdox doesn´t care or the engine simply can´t handle it.
And honestly, considering the overall mindset of "moar conquest! MOAR" I think that if stuff like desertion and diseases making conquest of distant places almost impossible... some people would rage.
- 1
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
It's not a legitimate argue many because the Series has changed in scope since its beginning: It is based in the era of colonisation that was based in Europe, and so originally was focused there. However, paradox is much larger now and has created a game far surpassing the scope of the original titles
- 2
That doesn't quite add up, though. Japan's army if not its navy was comparable to any western power at the beginning of that time period, and while it obviously differed in its isolationism, the Tokugawa Shogunate was comparably advanced in terms of administration. In game terms, Japan went from having equal tech to falling behind, with the greatest disparity being just before the reforms of the Meiji government. It makes sense to count from when they started improving their tech, not from when their tech didn't particularly need to be improved.
- 4
- 1
As if. If the culture of India, or China for that matter, was so inferior to the point making it inevitable to be conquered by the "intellectually superior" cultures of Europe explain how throughout history India and China were on par, if not ahead of Europe in technology, with Say with China inventing the first firearms, the revered Indian, Chinese and Japanese metallurgy.
- 9
You mean that they have a democracy. 200 years ago not any European nations had democracies either. If Japan went back to wearing kimonos everyday would that affect their tech buisiness. Japan is definitely Japanese in culture.
- 5
They were Americanized by the occupation after WWII, but yeah, Japan is particularly good at maintaining its own culture while adopting foreign technologies.
- 1
They are a parliamentary democracy in the Westminster tradition. What do you think their current governing arrangements more resemble, the UK 1815 or Japan 1815? Japan didn't even have a deliberative legislature until 1889 when they introduced the Imperial Diet, explicitly on the British model. Here's a helpful wikipedia article for you.
- 1
As of now, it seems from people's screenshots that Europeans involve themselves in India too rarely, if anything. However, I disagree that European conquest of all Indian states was inevitable in 1444!
That the europeans were the main driving force of the era does not have to mean that they were more technologically advanced. China was the centre of the world for much of the timeframe, indeed, Europeans started exploration to get access to more chinese luxury goods that europeans themselves could not produce.
I have once read an interesting peae by a historian (I dont remember his name) who claimed that China stopped their explorations because there was simply nothing for them to gain: the farther they went from China the poorer the lands they encountered became, until they turned back after reaching Africa, this worked the other way around for the Europeans, who encountered increasingly cultured and advanced civilizations.
Europeans did dominate the americas in this timeframe (being helped massively by diseases), but their presense in Asia is mostly limited to small trade posts until the very end of the timeframe.
One can however hardly deny that Europeans were ahead of the meso-american empires massively in terms of military technology. Claiming that those conquests were merely the result of sheer luck seems rather ignorant to me. The natives did not have any sort of cavalry, gunpowder, steel (or any kind of metal for that matter) or artillery. They were completely outclassed in every way except for numbers
- 5
- 1
And in case you dont know, numbers matter alot. You cant win with small regiment against huge regiment no matter how many guns you have. In that timeframe guns were very slow and hardly used. Main advantages europeans had was cavalry and diplomacy. If not diseases which killed 80 percent of natives, europeans wouldn't have conquered alot of mesoamerica.. I dont get it why people think that better technology made europeans dominant. It was mainly germs and diplomacy that worked in european favour until late timeframe when they built iron ships and advanced weapons which lead to advantage against asian countries.
- 4
For the last couple of days I've been going back and forth between reading a book of african history and playing EU4 and everytime I've gone from one to the other I've had to chuckle at the fact that I have less trouble defeating African armies in 1550 than real history's europeans had in 1880.
- 11
Isn't it? Some people think that in 1800 European armies wielded laser rifles, apparently, while weapons were really frozen on the flintlock and had been for almost two hundred years. The next big thing would have been the Dreyse gun, and that didn't see major action until the Austro-Prussian war (and what an action! It pulverized the competition).
- 10
If there were no real progress in weapons technology between 1600 and 1800 then that means EU4s tech system is even more unrealistic.
>Europeans only had little ports and pieces of land in Asia until 19th century
>Implying that isn't an enourmous achievement and that Asian cultures had the ability to do it too
Seems like someone needs a little grammar lesson.
Absolute doesn't only mean totally, but also without doubt.
Here's the link where you can improve your language:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/absolute
In particular the third point:
definite and without any doubt or confusion
Yeah, it isn't going anywhere, expecially if you keep making ad-hominem logical fallacies as the one you just made in this post.
Where did you read this insanity?
Check this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey
>Implying that isn't an enourmous achievement and that Asian cultures had the ability to do it too
Seems like someone needs a little grammar lesson.
Absolute doesn't only mean totally, but also without doubt.
Here's the link where you can improve your language:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/absolute
In particular the third point:
definite and without any doubt or confusion
Yeah, it isn't going anywhere, expecially if you keep making ad-hominem logical fallacies as the one you just made in this post.
Where did you read this insanity?
Check this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey
Last edited:
- 9
- 3
- 1
I don't really see how one could dispute a European advantage in technology. At what point do technology and knowledge differ?
The mere fact that the Europeans were walking around mesoamerica should tell us all we need to know.
Their technological advantage can't be doubted just because many died from disease, and said advantage wasn't tested as sharply. Not disagreeing that the disease part was very helpful.
- 1
There was very real progress, there's a big difference between an Arquebus, Blunderbuss, Musket, or towards the end a rifle. There's also substantial advancements in tactics and armaments -- the largest advancements made were in military doctrines and drill, as can be seen from the evolution of formations from early gunpowder Pike and Shot, to late Naepoleonic Squares (where, incidentally, the bayonet made pike and shot one individual, instead of two).
- 1