Why didn't any blobs form in real history like in any paradox games?

[TheFlemishDuck]

Rome understood the concept of mobility, which is why they built roads throughout their empire. England accomplished its blobbing primarily through naval transport. The railroad helped cement both the US and the SU as stable and internally supportable countries, rather than fracturing into smaller defensible realms. It's not the only mechanism, but plays a part.

It's a technological limitation to which both England and Rome concentrated on sollutions in so far as they had the know how. Lets just say that Rome and England also knew the importance of heavy investment to maximise the amount of territory they could cover in a reasonable time. I see it as a "hard limit" depending on technological advancement and it's observable imho how size of empires increases as technoligy evolves.

It takes a strong army to put down the inevitable tax revolts, and covering the exorbitant costs of supplying and paying the huge army necessary to cover the long hostile borders eventually becomes the primary goal of the state. Assyria fell into that trap, and Rome did pretty much the same. Both fell into to civil wars, army revolts, and then outside forces attacked the weakened remnants.

The Romans knew it when they were hitting the limitations of their empire size and retreated from area's like Dacia later for example to have a more defensive position behind the Rhine. Perhaps Rome also could and even should have kept Messopotamia but it was given up iirc for similar reasons of "becoming too large". It was noticable how difficult it was to defend the border given the possibillety of concentrated enemy forces at a certain point and the apparent need to draw men away from defensive positions all over the empire to shore up an area at many times.

Another factor that might be easily overlooked imho in millitary terms is the command of imperial armies. Certaintly for Rome it's apparent that any general could become a potential rival for emperor if the emperor would not take to the field himself to defend the Empire as so often needed, yet the emperor could not be everywhere and the later addoption of the tetrarchy also showed that need to have sufficient trustworthy generals to defend the many wide flanks of the empire. The larger a empire grows the more seperate armies it requires and the thus trustworthy and capable people to lead them, afaik trough much of history this was a big issue as giving command of a big army could play into the hands of any ambitious would-be warlord, and at times the soldiers would even make that decission for the general.

 

[Kovax]

Another factor that might be easily overlooked imho in millitary terms is the command of imperial armies. Certaintly for Rome it's apparent that any general could become a potential rival for emperor if the emperor would not take to the field himself to defend the Empire as so often needed, yet the emperor could not be everywhere and the later addoption of the tetrarchy also showed that need to have sufficient trustworthy generals to defend the many wide flanks of the empire. The larger a empire grows the more seperate armies it requires and the thus trustworthy and capable people to lead them, afaik trough much of history this was a big issue as giving command of a big army could play into the hands of any ambitious would-be warlord, and at times the soldiers would even make that decission for the general.

…..like some overly ambitious and heavily indebted guy named Julius?

 

[bz249]

…..like some overly ambitious and heavily indebted guy named Julius?

Wasn't he named Gaius? That month thingy is his family name.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Wasn't he named Gaius? That month thingy is his family name.

Yeah, Gaius was his personal name. Just like his father's and his adopted son's (who were known as Gaius Julius Caesar and Gaius Julius Caesar respectively).

 

[bz249]

Yeah, Gaius was his personal name. Just like his father's and his adopted son's (who were known as Gaius Julius Caesar and Gaius Julius Caesar respectively).

What a boring family... no wonder they went instead on world conquest and rampage.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

What a boring family... no wonder they went instead on world conquest and rampage.

I'm not sure. For example, Marcus Porcius Cato, the son, grandson and great grandson of Marcus Porcius Cato, Marcus Porcius Cato and Marcus Porcius Cato (...respectively), never went on any world conquest rampages.

 

[Yakman]

IRL - if you have a wealthy core which is generating a lot of revenue, stability, prestige, etc., you are going to spend a lot more time focusing on it. and if you wind up inheriting/conquering some pithy poor place far away, you don't necessarily spend a lot of time worrying about it breaking away.

INPARADOX - you will destroy all of your own cool stuff in order to keep the poorest province because you like the shape it makes your realm

 

[Henry IX]

IRL - if you have a wealthy core which is generating a lot of revenue, stability, prestige, etc., you are going to spend a lot more time focusing on it. and if you wind up inheriting/conquering some pithy poor place far away, you don't necessarily spend a lot of time worrying about it breaking away.

INPARADOX - you will destroy all of your own cool stuff in order to keep the poorest province because you like the shape it makes your realm

I'm pretty sure I can name a bunch of examples of people bankrupting their core to hold on to 'prestige' areas of minimal real value...

 

[Yakman]

I'm pretty sure I can name a bunch of examples of people bankrupting their core to hold on to 'prestige' areas of minimal real value...

i've done it.

[censored] those turks for taking some measly province in libya. THAT'S MINE BY RIGHT OF CONQUEST 10 MINUTES OF REALTIME PLAY AGO! IN THE NAME OF IRELAND!

 

[Henry IX]

I meant in IRL.

I am sure we have all waged stupid, expensive wars for pointless wastelands because "that's mine dammit!" in most Paradox games...

 

[Fishman786]

Is it just me or did a load of posts disappear from this thread?

 

[Greenskyguy]

I believe that it might be a fusing of two similar threads on the history forum.

 

[gagenater]

Rome understood the concept of mobility, which is why they built roads throughout their empire. England accomplished its blobbing primarily through naval transport. The railroad helped cement both the US and the SU as stable and internally supportable countries, rather than fracturing into smaller defensible realms. It's not the only mechanism, but plays a part.

Then you have the expansionist military state, conquering its neighbors and fueling further expansion by heavy taxation on the new territories. That means more land to garrison, and therefore a bigger army and even higher taxes to support it....so you invade and loot more land to pay the army, which then become enemies on your border. It takes a strong army to put down the inevitable tax revolts, and covering the exorbitant costs of supplying and paying the huge army necessary to cover the long hostile borders eventually becomes the primary goal of the state. Assyria fell into that trap, and Rome did pretty much the same. Both fell into to civil wars, army revolts, and then outside forces attacked the weakened remnants.

Roman mobility was also keyed very very heavily on naval transport in the Mediterranean basin. Basically wherever the empire touched on/bordered the Mediterranean within a certain reasonably short distance, it was stable and long lived. Anywhere else (England, past the Rhine, past the Danube, the black sea frontier, and the Mesopotamian frontier, and it required considerable and costly effort to get and keep, and usually could not be maintained in the long run if/when any opposition became organized.

 

[bz249]

The railroad helped cement both the US and the SU as stable and internally supportable countries, rather than fracturing into smaller defensible realms. It's not the only mechanism, but plays a part.

Both the US and Russia had a good start with the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio and the Volga River system to form a stable core for the blob as river transport allowed fast and efficient troop redeployement. A lack of such riverine transport ability was one of the reason why no such blob emerged in Southern America (okay nowaday Brasil is a blob, but for quite a long time it limited to the coast)

 

[aono]

Actually, there were blobs. Admitedly, they tend to be in Asia more then in Europe, but still.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Mongol_Empire_map_2.gif - look at this gif. If it's not blob, I don't know what is. Or look into Caliphate history. Or look into China.

But - the most daring problems of administration such a blob just isn't modeled. In Paradox games rulers always had full info and a lot of direct control. Time lag in "happening->delivering info to responsible administrator->making a decision->making a plan->delivering info to executors->executing" chain isn't modeled either.

 

[Sabotage13]

The fundamental difference between Paradox games and Reality is that in our historical reality, political control is not something that a government has by default, it has to be actively maintained. The challenges of pre-industrial communications systems meant that control tended to devolve and localize over time, requiring constant effort on part of the political center to maintain its grip on peripheral territory and rivalling factions.

Paradox games primarily concern themselves with painting maps, not political mechanics or the issues faced by historical governments. What little internal politics there usually are, exist to provide a speedbump for the map painting, not an insurmountable challenge to the very nature of centralized political control.

 

[Barsoom]

Roman mobility was also keyed very very heavily on naval transport in the Mediterranean basin. Basically wherever the empire touched on/bordered the Mediterranean within a certain reasonably short distance, it was stable and long lived. Anywhere else (England, past the Rhine, past the Danube, the black sea frontier, and the Mesopotamian frontier, and it required considerable and costly effort to get and keep, and usually could not be maintained in the long run if/when any opposition became organized.

Overall, yes. But England and the Rhine frontier stayed remarkably stable for 3 centuries despite their distance from the Mediterranean. The explanation probably lies in them forming a secondary transport system, with movement up and down the Rhine and across the narrow sea to England. This formed an economic axis and a logistic support system of its own and also made it so that the legions posted along this frontier could reinforce each other without having to wait for central command in Rome to act. The associated risk was that northwestern command could decide to go it alone or attempt a takeover of the empire, both of which occurred with some regularity during the empire's times of crisis.

 

[Calad]

My questions are.

1)Why did huge blobs never formed in history, or if formed(Like the Mongol empire) why did they never managed to sustain their empire.
2)Why did Indian rulers never manage to conquer Tibet.


And last and most importantly.


3)So what are paradox games failing to simulate?
Why are their blobs. What's the root problem that differs real history and PDX games?

1. Blobs did form. Roman Empire is the best example. Alexandrian empire as well, and I will be using both of them as an example.

In order to keep it, you need to eliminate your rivals. Alexandrian empire fell right away because there was no political will among the generals. Everybody related to Alexander were executed in order to establish their own dynasty. This will partly answer to question 3: imagine your every army having its own ambition. In eu4 they are suicidal loyal to you, something Hitler and Stalin could only dream of. CK2 simulates this better by having vassal system but keeping high opinion has become very easy and infinite money makes every for very easy again for you.

Rome was able to blob because of Republican system: they had a lot of armies, loyal to Republic. Then Empire came and blobbing slowed down and stopped. Same problem as with Alexander: how to keep your troops loyal? Basically most of Empire period Romans were fighting against each other or ensuring their loyalty. Letting general to go out and conquer some land was a political risk for the Emperor, so that was a big no-no.

2. Because they did not want to. It is the same reason why Javanese never colonized Australia: they already had everything. India/Java is fabulous rich compared to Tiber/Australia. People are tough, hostile and poor. There were no resources, no spoil of war. Lets say you conquer Tibet and then what? You have cities nobody cared before, people that are so poor they cant even feed your army. There is more prestige for conquering some better, well known place than barren mountains.

3. No attrition, absolute loyalty, no real internal politics, managing troops is cheap and effortless and peace deals are from 20th century (spoiler: most of history there were no negotiations, it was either a raid, capitulation or annihilation).

 

[Barsoom]

(spoiler: most of history there were no negotiations, it was either a raid, capitulation or annihilation).

Nope. We have evidence of diplomacy going back to the 14th century BCE. The first treaty we have the text of is that between Egypt and the Hittites, 1274 BCE. Our forefathers were not so dumb that they fail to realize talking might be a way to avoid fighting if they thought fighting would be too costly.

 

[Calad]

Nope. We have evidence of diplomacy going back to the 14th century BCE. The first treaty we have the text of is that between Egypt and the Hittites, 1274 BCE. Our forefathers were not so dumb that they fail to realize talking might be a way to avoid fighting if they thought fighting would be too costly.

If you are at all familiar with Ancient Egyptian history you should know most of their writings were boasting of Pharaoh x annihilating rebellion y or nation x. There simply wasnt any room for defeated party.