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

[Barsoom]

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.

I'm familiar enough to know that this is only partly true. It doesn't work that way with major powers whose centers lay too far outside operating range, such as the Hittites. You might want to look up the documents I cited before you answer with another unsupported generality.

 

[Conon394]

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.

You are thinking about propaganda for internal consumption.

 

[Calad]

I'm familiar enough to know that this is only partly true. It doesn't work that way with major powers whose centers lay too far outside operating range, such as the Hittites. You might want to look up the documents I cited before you answer with another unsupported generality.

Your flaw is you assume most of warfare has occurred between organized states. Like Germany and France.

This is false. Most of warfare has been tribal warfare: raids, subjugation and expulsion. Not to mention every peasant rebellion in history, most of civil wars and slave rebellions. The aristocracy simply did not negotiate with peasants. Colonization of Africa is another good example. Excluding states in North Africa Europeans simply planted their flag and did whatever they wanted.

Now, that is true it is the first peace treaty. So when comes the second known peace treaty? Or Third! As you can see they are incredible rare, not to even mention Bronze Age collapse and all the history before 1274 BCE... You cannot generalise exception. Back then human societies were much less organized and they simply didnt bother to make a peace treaty because states were so weak. Another good examples are Ancient Egypt long-term enemies of Libya and Nubia. Egyptians didnt send envoys to negotiate, they send an army and massacred them and came back. No need to negotiate when you kill enough.

You are thinking about propaganda for internal consumption.

Yes? That doesnt disprove my point.

 

[L'Afrique]

Your flaw is you assume most of warfare has occurred between organized states. Like Germany and France.

This is false. Most of warfare has been tribal warfare: raids, subjugation and expulsion. Not to mention every peasant rebellion in history, most of civil wars and slave rebellions. The aristocracy simply did not negotiate with peasants. Colonization of Africa is another good example. Excluding states in North Africa Europeans simply planted their flag and did whatever they wanted.

Now, that is true it is the first peace treaty. So when comes the second known peace treaty? Or Third! As you can see they are incredible rare, not to even mention Bronze Age collapse and all the history before 1274 BCE... You cannot generalise exception. Back then human societies were much less organized and they simply didnt bother to make a peace treaty because states were so weak. Another good examples are Ancient Egypt long-term enemies of Libya and Nubia. Egyptians didnt send envoys to negotiate, they send an army and massacred them and came back. No need to negotiate when you kill enough.

Yes? That doesnt disprove my point.

You're treating "first known peace treaty" as "definitely the first peace treaty, in fact, first treaty!"

Rather, the fact that this treaty exists implies that the near eastern empires knew of and used the concept, and indeed there exist plenty of other treaties in the near east. What makes the one in question stand out is that we found both the hittite and egyptian text versions. Remember that the historical record is only a fraction of what existed- there's no reason to think that every other treaty we have was in fact a propaganda piece that the other side had no say in, just because we haven't found a record for them. Our knowledge of the bronze age is extremely vague and based almost entirely on archaeology, not surviving written information, especially outside of Egypt.

 

[Barsoom]

Your flaw is you assume most of warfare has occurred between organized states. Like Germany and France.

This is false. Most of warfare has been tribal warfare: raids, subjugation and expulsion. Not to mention every peasant rebellion in history, most of civil wars and slave rebellions. The aristocracy simply did not negotiate with peasants. Colonization of Africa is another good example. Excluding states in North Africa Europeans simply planted their flag and did whatever they wanted.

Now, that is true it is the first peace treaty. So when comes the second known peace treaty? Or Third! As you can see they are incredible rare, not to even mention Bronze Age collapse and all the history before 1274 BCE... You cannot generalise exception. Back then human societies were much less organized and they simply didnt bother to make a peace treaty because states were so weak. Another good examples are Ancient Egypt long-term enemies of Libya and Nubia. Egyptians didnt send envoys to negotiate, they send an army and massacred them and came back. No need to negotiate when you kill enough.

You're moving the goal posts. I reacted to this statement: "(spoiler: most of history there were no negotiations, it was either a raid, capitulation or annihilation)." NOT to: most warfare in history was not between states.

But even with goalposts moved, you're still wrong. Anthopologists who have actually studied tribal wars have found that most of them have recognized rules of conduct and many more end with negotiated settlements than with conquest or eradication. In the absence of state control, tribes regulate their conflicts through raids and blood feuds, yes, but they also have institutions like blood money, ceasefires and peace agreements.

Your generalizations about social conflict and colonialism are equally baseless. There are many instances of aristocrats negotiating with peasants. More so with urban than rural leaders but they did need the labor to generate the income to afford their lifestyle. If they thought talking directly to a peasant was beneath them, they could send their non-aristocratic sergeants or use the church as an intermediary. Regarding colonialism, Europeans usually secured treaties with native rulers, in part because their European rivals had some regard for such contracts. Of course, it was also less costly to defend far away colonies if at least some local rulers recognized your claim, and perhaps even joined you in a fight against other local rulers.

Finally, next time please do a simple google search for "Egypt Nubia diplomacy" before claiming there was none.

 

[demanvanwezel]

if you want to know why there weren't any lasting european blobs then look at napoleon, coalition after coalition untill he was ultimatly ground down

another example: charles V, his "expansion" was completely according to the book and still everyone went "yeah no, this guy is scary, no more land for him"

 

[Vlad_Dracul1989]

Generally because game-wise, you're rational and immortal God-Emperor who may rule for centuries and you are absolutely not afraid of anything

Try to use time machine and personally rule Muscovy or pagan Denmark How long would you last, even with complete knowledge of things around?

 

[aono]

Try to use time machine and personally rule Muscovy or pagan Denmark How long would you last, even with complete knowledge of things around?

Personaly, I would die as I would be deprived from modern medicine. Beyond that, in Muscovy I would have a nice chance. There was always some nice spot for prophetic leaders.

 

[Conon394]

Yes? That doesnt disprove my point.

Well going back a post I'm not sure I'm trying to up until the Egypt thing one. In post #38 you are on good ground until #4. Lots of people had peace treaties. I mean realistically if you look at the Peloponnesian war is started over arguments about the nature of a peace treaty. As much as Argos wanted to use the war and alliance with Athens to thump Sparta it waited for its own treaty with Sparta to expire. It did not jump in on day one or when Athens was accented after plyos. That's real commitment to treaties. Egypt talked a big talk for home consumption but there is ample evidence for diplomatic discourse between them and the Hittites and the various other powers of area. You are right there is for much of history lots of non state peoples and they and settled state people often had a zero sum relationship, but not always. I'm pretty sure the Athenians would not have had a good time if the Scythians were their neighbors and both would probably have the relationship you suggest. But put some water between them and they were quite able to make lots of diplomatic arrangements and no attempts at liquidation.

 

[IsadorBG]

Strange question. Blob did form. Perhaps the best example is the persian empire that from the achemenides to the Abbasid Caliph existed for more than a millenia.

Yes it had periods of extension and retractions and the actual ruling class could be change radically as a new dynasty took over but there always was a "blob" in that part of the middle east for the pretty much the whole antiquity/middle east.

Then you have China of course.

Big difference from game to reality is that no dynasty rules forever... except if you descend from Susanoo or big Hugh but even then it is arguable.

 

[Conon394]

Big difference from game to reality is that no dynasty rules forever... except if you descend from Susanoo or big Hugh but even then it is arguable.

Interesting point you do get blobs when the world does recreate the nature of EU4 - a larger directer/ideal/culture of the polity than just the current ruler or dynasty. A smaller example in time than China would be the US. Irrespective of current governments or parties the US was more or less committed to expanding across North America (quite possibly to a larger country than its government should really govern). A few twists of fate and its not unlikely that blob would have run over Canada, more of Mexico and Cuba, etc.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Interesting point you do get blobs when the world does recreate the nature of EU4 - a larger directer/ideal/culture of the polity than just the current ruler or dynasty. A smaller example in time than China would be the US. Irrespective of current governments or parties the US was more or less committed to expanding across North America (quite possibly to a larger country than its government should really govern). A few twists of fate and its not unlikely that blob would have run over Canada, more of Mexico and Cuba, etc.

Or less of it

 

[Conon394]

Or less of it

True but w/o a significant setback the US was sort of always pushing. Compare Mexico's attempts at empire fizzled quickly and the UK never put much effort into pushing Canada in all directions even with US provocations.

 

[bz249]

True but w/o a significant setback the US was sort of always pushing. Compare Mexico's attempts at empire fizzled quickly and the UK never put much effort into pushing Canada in all directions even with US provocations.

The stupid rivers and mountains are aligned badly for a Mexican Empire... the US had quite an advantage that they can move wherever they wanted

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River#/media/File:Mississippirivermapnew.jpg

 

[Avernite]

The stupid rivers and mountains are aligned badly for a Mexican Empire... the US had quite an advantage that they can move wherever they wanted

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River#/media/File:Mississippirivermapnew.jpg

That map actually shows a whole chunk of the map (the west coast) where the US advantage compared to Mexico is limited; a ship from Mexico-proper maybe has a hard time reaching California, but the same or worse is true of someone on foot from the Mississippi waterways.

 

[gagenater]

That map actually shows a whole chunk of the map (the west coast) where the US advantage compared to Mexico is limited; a ship from Mexico-proper maybe has a hard time reaching California, but the same or worse is true of someone on foot from the Mississippi waterways.

Yes, but the US push west past the Mississippi river system happened to coincide with the development of railroads. Railroads that were massively expanded and subsidized by the US government specifically for the purpose of tying the western portion of the nation to the eastern portion. By plan, or by accident, it worked out. Canada did the same thing to tie British Columbia to it, which was otherwise highly contested, and likely to go to the US.

 

[Avernite]

Yes, but the US push west past the Mississippi river system happened to coincide with the development of railroads. Railroads that were massively expanded and subsidized by the US government specifically for the purpose of tying the western portion of the nation to the eastern portion. By plan, or by accident, it worked out. Canada did the same thing to tie British Columbia to it, which was otherwise highly contested, and likely to go to the US.

Yeah, but we're discussing possibility. Mexico building railways to the Pacific is very difficult, but modernization of shipping also made the naval route to California more robust, and that had (sort of) worked already for some time before the USA came knocking.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

if you want to know why there weren't any lasting european blobs then look at napoleon, coalition after coalition untill he was ultimatly ground down

another example: charles V, his "expansion" was completely according to the book and still everyone went "yeah no, this guy is scary, no more land for him"

Pitty it cannot be universally applied. Take Alexander the great or the Mongols, noone defeated them rather they stopped conquering due to internal matters. Likely Alexander could have gone much further if his army had been up for it, he also got wounded just to push his army to fight. Everyime the Great Khanate needed a new Khan all conquering stopped as all Mongol Generals and leaders would rush of to the capital and that thing kinda ended when people had issue's with the one who arrived first. It simply fractured internally, had it not then Western Europe would have been next.

 

[BBBD316]

Well the ERE emperors and pretenders giving land away to the Turks to take the throne seems to be an anti blobbing technique.

If pdx could have rebellions were rebels could give land away to your biggest threat to bring them in on their side I dare say blobbing would stop.

 

[Acheron]

I think Jared Diamond wrote a book that tackled that question, "Guns, Germs and Steel" IIRC. Also IIRC, he argued that it was mostly geography, that European geography favored the formation of smaller, defensible nations, with its major rivers and mountain ranges, while other regions, like China or the Middle East, were more favorable to consolidation in one big blob.