Actually, I'm taking the numbers from how the situation was in older saves of Machiavelli...
-
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.
- Status
Actually, I'm taking the numbers from how the situation was in older saves of Machiavelli...
I think BiB will stop uber-arguing about there being an uber-Spain, when he takes up a new nation in Machiavelli 2.
Also, I don't think Lucius was referring to 'black' as in having done bad things, but in the decay of the Spanish Empire from 1714 to 1814. He argued that many British and French historians greatly exaggerated how archaic or impotent the Spanish Empire became in the 18th century. I feel the truth is somewhere in the middle. If only by comparing it to the heights from which the Spanish Empire had fallen from while under Bourbon leadership to the swiftly rising stars of England and France. The Ottoman Empire suffered from the same bad press, even though they were still able to suprise the European powers in the 19th century again and again with how resilient they proved. In both cases, the rot came from within, and that cannot be denied.
Originally posted by Damocles
I think BiB will stop uber-arguing about there being an uber-Spain, when he takes up a new nation in Machiavelli 2.
Nope
Go waaaaay back to when you were first breaching 300-350, and see how France's income was. I remember specifically commenting on this around the time of the Franco-Venetian vs Austro-Spain war.
well, you make lots of sense, but the last point is where you lose it. any nation who ascends to dominance (be it trading, militarily, or otherwise) must eventually come down, because its the way things happen. Its called competition, the way of capitalism. any, and all, nations who are not number 1 compete with whoever it is that is number 1, why? well , why would you compete to be second best when first place is just one step higher. so, as second best and so on down the line only really have to compete with local competition, the king of the hill has world wide compete it must continue to sperate itself from. for anyone , or any nation of people, to continually hold dominance, without ever being equalled or outmatched, is simply illogical. soooo......all the hard work and effort could be considered a waste when you know its all going to come crashing down in the end, but the time spent as the best should be well worth it.
i dont think the overall worth of any CoT's can be measured in percentage of income. what would those 2 20/20 monopolies be worth to a nations like, say, Modena? or Poland?
just because you have a countless number of gold mines, plus many other 20/20 monopolies you can not say that they are not valuable.
I was talking about them when u look at what they mean to Spain, the nation which the whole thread is pretty much about. I don't see what Modena even does in this discussion, esp in relation to 20/20 american monopolies.
I do not believe decline is a curse automatically bestowed upon you the moment you become the most successful nation. I believe that nations have declined for concrete and unique reasons. I do not believe in any sort of abstract historical inevitability. The varying lengths of dominance support my argument. There have been nations that were number one for over 1,000 years. Now, the people that assume that "what goes up must come down" would probably have predicted decline after 100 years. And they would have been dead wrong. After 100, 200, even 500 years the nation was still getting stronger. That's what I meant by the last sentence of my previous post. This certainly argues strongly against the suggestion that decline begin the very month that a nation assumes the top spot, which was suggested, and that's what I was arguing against. I think we agree on this point as far as I could tell from your post.
But the part of my argument that I rely on even more is the fact that EU2 is a game. Many of us are huge history buffs here, and some of us want EU2 to be 100% true to history. However, we must realize that EU2 is a game. If it was 100% true to history no intervention by the player would be possible. It would be a book. So as a game, some historical accuracy is desireable, but the game taking matters into its own hands to cause your country to decline no matter how good your policies are is dubious in my view.
To put my two cents in:
the #1 power today. The USA, with it's Military, Economy ranking #1 it's politics<not mattering as much I suppose>
It's gone from
Egyptian Empire
Roman Empire
Mongol Empire<shortest live greatness>
British Empire
United States of America
things will most definitely change, pretty much anyways... Perhaps China will be the next SuperPower in a century with it's dedicated work ethic and it's slowly developing industrious people<they had a stint a few thousand years ago as well>
P.S. Did France ever actually win a war? I thought the were known notoriously for never having won a single war officially for the scoreboard? hehe
the #1 power today. The USA, with it's Military, Economy ranking #1 it's politics<not mattering as much I suppose>
It's gone from
Egyptian Empire
Roman Empire
Mongol Empire<shortest live greatness>
British Empire
United States of America
things will most definitely change, pretty much anyways... Perhaps China will be the next SuperPower in a century with it's dedicated work ethic and it's slowly developing industrious people<they had a stint a few thousand years ago as well>
P.S. Did France ever actually win a war? I thought the were known notoriously for never having won a single war officially for the scoreboard? hehe
Well. We Americans don't consider ourselves an 'Empire'. I'm sure the occassional 12 year old does, or the random idiot clown. But any American who has ever taken either a good Government class or graduated from college, is likely to be offended by having America referred to as an 'Empire' then gratified. We're just here to make sure the rest of you don't end up goostepping and speaking chinese.
Also, contrary to popular belief, France has won quite a few wars. They saved Western Europe from the Islamic tide that rolled over Spain several times, won the Hundred Years War which influenced European geopolitics for the next 400 years, defeated England in the American Revolution (there was a number of French-English fighting going on outside North America) and four our of five of the Everyone in Europe vs Napoleon wars..
Democles:
I don't care whether you call yourself the Holy Roman Empire, the Southern Southwest Emirate, the United Underrated Republic of Eastern Artisans. It's all the same thing...
You're a nation
You're guarding your Worldwide interests
Your Primary goal is to be #1 one way or the other
<it's in all human nature, to strive to be perfect, the best at what you do, well you can be 2nd best if you like<but usually that's an acceptable of self-defeatism>
Oil Mughals don't like to call themselves Oil Empires nor does Microsoft... It's true America is the closest thing to a modern day Empire we have... It's most like the Greek and Roman Empire since any nation that has existed since. Look at our Goverment and architecture? Atrocities, Expansionism? Any which way you slice the pie, we've got what the rest of the Great Empires have had this juncture in comming history...Power, Control, Spread of our Culture
We're defeating the Muslims our T.V.s the Europeans with our FastFood Joints. We're overwhelming the Russians with DVDs, soon everyone will take from the American Idea. Look at our defeated foes in Germany and Japan who both wanted to be #1
And BTW: We're all brainwashed like the rest of the World to believe differently. College produces some smart people, you believe in the bible? Most people do, though it was written from the smartest people few millenia ago.. Great book to control the Masses aye? Religion a form of mindcontrol? Education different? You know the majority of people who graduate College will not be wealthy... Cause it doesn't teach you to be Wealthy
It's biased
I don't care whether you call yourself the Holy Roman Empire, the Southern Southwest Emirate, the United Underrated Republic of Eastern Artisans. It's all the same thing...
You're a nation
You're guarding your Worldwide interests
Your Primary goal is to be #1 one way or the other
<it's in all human nature, to strive to be perfect, the best at what you do, well you can be 2nd best if you like<but usually that's an acceptable of self-defeatism>
Oil Mughals don't like to call themselves Oil Empires nor does Microsoft... It's true America is the closest thing to a modern day Empire we have... It's most like the Greek and Roman Empire since any nation that has existed since. Look at our Goverment and architecture? Atrocities, Expansionism? Any which way you slice the pie, we've got what the rest of the Great Empires have had this juncture in comming history...Power, Control, Spread of our Culture
We're defeating the Muslims our T.V.s the Europeans with our FastFood Joints. We're overwhelming the Russians with DVDs, soon everyone will take from the American Idea. Look at our defeated foes in Germany and Japan who both wanted to be #1
And BTW: We're all brainwashed like the rest of the World to believe differently. College produces some smart people, you believe in the bible? Most people do, though it was written from the smartest people few millenia ago.. Great book to control the Masses aye? Religion a form of mindcontrol? Education different? You know the majority of people who graduate College will not be wealthy... Cause it doesn't teach you to be Wealthy
It's biased
Mmm.. yeah, sure.
I will propose you a little exercise of perception.
Look at the population of the zones colonized in America by the Spanish. Look at the people.
Ok, now look at the rest.
Well, looking at the average citizen, in which parts do you think the original population was more presserved despite all. How many north americans can claim (in %) native origins?
Of course, as in the rest of any similar process there was GRAVE abuse, slavery, etc... but... well... it's amazing that we treated so bad the parts of America we colonized, but still integrated their previous residents...
... while in the USA the native population was practically driven then anhilated nearly completely. Perhaps your definition of treating well somebody is a merciful bullet in the brain.
Frankly, I think that the French were the ones who behaved (relatively speaking and on average) better the native population. But the English or their american anglosaxon descendants? hah! no way.
(By the way, I suggest you to study further, if you dare, the lives of several English and some French explorers, or colonization processes... they don't ressist even the most benevolent of the approaches...)
Last edited:
Actually, to my knowledge they only stopped the initial wave. The christians kingdoms that formed stopped themselves the second (Almoravid invasion) and the Third (Almohad invasion, in the famous battle of Las Navas de Tolosa).
Of course... one must consider if it was too good stopping the first wave at all
, considering that the Caliphate of Cordoba (which was the country stablished in Spain after the first succesful invasion) was far more cultural, political and technologically advanced, as well as far more openminded that any other country in Europe...But I agree, Damocles, France (and Spain knows that for sure!) has won a good share of wars (Blasted Rocroi and blasted La Turenne, by the way
).EDIT:
By the way, was not this about MP balance between France and Spain? Not hating France and all that?
Let's give France a bit of our love and some hugs, ok?
Originally posted by Lucius Sulla
Actually, to my knowledge they only stopped the initial wave. The christians kingdoms that formed stopped themselves the second (Almoravid invasion) and the Third (Almohad invasion, in the famous battle of Las Navas de Tolosa).
Of course... one must consider if it was too good stopping the first wave at all
But I agree, Damocles, France (and Spain knows that for sure!) has won a good share of wars (Blasted Rocroi and blasted La Turenne, by the way
EDIT:
By the way, was not this about MP balance between France and Spain? Not hating France and all that?
Let's give France a bit of our love and some hugs, ok?
I was under the impression that the Franks fought quite a few wars with expansionistic Muslim elements around the Pyrennes, starting in the fifth century, generally a couple hundred years before the northern Castillian kingdoms got their acts together.
Also, there is sadly, a very fine and opaque line between a enlightened kingdom such as the Caliphate of Cordoba where Christian, Judean and Islamic culture was so thoroughly intertwined...And the rather brutal, berber warrior-caste rulers of the Almoravids and Almohads.
OTOH,
In an completely offtopic vein,
Isn't it ironic that in the past, the Islamic countries were the most enlightened and tolerant of other cultures and faiths, and now they are the most narrowminded and brutal? With the exception of Turkey, I would say that as far as religous doctrine goes, the Middle East is more hardcore in the last 100 years, then 1000 years ago.
Though, I suppose that has alot to do with fanatic desert tribes coming to power and or the toppling of liberal Sunni monarchies...
In an completely offtopic vein,
Isn't it ironic that in the past, the Islamic countries were the most enlightened and tolerant of other cultures and faiths, and now they are the most narrowminded and brutal? With the exception of Turkey, I would say that as far as religous doctrine goes, the Middle East is more hardcore in the last 100 years, then 1000 years ago.
Though, I suppose that has alot to do with fanatic desert tribes coming to power and or the toppling of liberal Sunni monarchies...
But you must consider the Almoravids and Almohads were a completely different nation, different race, culture... only same religion.
- Status