Why is Ukraine a Tribal Government?
- Thread starter unmerged(271387)
- 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.
I always wondered this myself. Why would a Ukrainian tribe revolt from a feudal monarchy in all-Christian lands?
Well actualy it should be princedom, and not ukraine but rus. There was no ukraine until XVII-XVIII century...
Well i dunno what you mean, but i know ukraine evolved from cossacks bands... maybe you mean this...
Look up the artwork "Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks", and then you will know
Oh, yes, that's an epic image : )
anyway i'd drop the ukraine IG and give more cores to Zaporozhia. would be more precise... what do you think?
He means that Ukraine in the game isn't modern state of Ukraine, but it represents independent Cossack state and Cossacks had tribal form of government.
I meant to put more focus on the tribe revolting from the feudal monarchy, not so much the Ukrainian part.
Today's Iran (Persia) is a something between theocracy and democracy.
What does today's Iran have to do with Persia in Eu3?
And wasnt Iran something else quite different before it became a theocracy?
I assume that's his point. Paradox probably made them a Theocracy because of modern Iran, it doesn't really make a great deal of sense.
Name Ukraine has been used since the middle ages and Cossack tribes of the early modern era called their homeland Ukraine, so I don't know why it should be called to something else, just because modern state has the same historic name of the region.
Safavid Persia was sort of feudal and hereditary theocracy. We have had many arguments on this forum if theocracy or monarchy represents it's rather unique form of government better.
It's debatable whether Safavid Persia really could be classified as a theocracy, but even then there's no reason to say that the Persia that appears in a 1399 start really should be meant to represent the Safavids.
Exactly, countries that over centuries developed into something which is usually a product of specific historic circumstances (like England compared to rest of Europe in EU3 time frame) are one thing.
Unless that specific history is part of actual game history, in this case a country that does not exist in 1399. or has any provincial/country history entries before that (IIRC), i for one think such a country should be given a default form of government of that age and region, which in this case would be a despotic monarchy.
To make it fair, an event chain could also be added, so under certain triggers (something alike real life history) such a country could develop into something else, why not even make specific government for Persia etc. Its a simple way to add lots of flavor to the area and vastly increase the overall game value.
Unless that specific history is part of actual game history, in this case a country that does not exist in 1399. or has any provincial/country history entries before that (IIRC), i for one think such a country should be given a default form of government of that age and region, which in this case would be a despotic monarchy.
To make it fair, an event chain could also be added, so under certain triggers (something alike real life history) such a country could develop into something else, why not even make specific government for Persia etc. Its a simple way to add lots of flavor to the area and vastly increase the overall game value.
They don't exist at the start and many times religious groups are the leaders of revolutions especially in the middle east so maybe that's why