It seems a bit strange that you can not become an empire version of a republic when you have 600 cities and get 4 idea slots.
Why no empire version of republic?
- Thread starter Denkt
- 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.
Streams, there is no republic version of the empire with 4 idea slot.
Thus if you want to stay as republic you only get to use 3 national ideas through the whole game.
I guess it's another way to make Republics more appealing, since you have more control under an empire.
If anything it makes republics less appealing because there is no 4 idea slot version of it.
Well that's probably part of the effort to model how Rome's republican government started to buckle under the strain of not being able to govern their large realm, leading to the growth of populist strongmen prior to the formation of the empire.
Republic is a backward type of government that is good for city states not for a large Empires.
The Roman Empire was not really a common monarchy either as much of the administrative power was actually controlled by a bureaucratic elite while being a military dicatorship based on whoever could Control the most of the armies. Senate still existed during the Roman Empire and was in some way stronger than it had been in the republic.
If anything the Empire should neither be a monarchy or a republic as it share traits from both and even some unique stuff so making it is own government form would likely be more like reality.
Not surprising, it was the same way in EURome, although back then you could only transition to Empire from a Dictatorship.
In which ways do you mean (I really ask out of interest)? I know we're talking about a wealthy upper class, but as a political institution it certainly lost influence to the - rather powerful - position of emperor when compared to republican times (and when the competing concilium plebis wasn't nearly as influential as the average emperor of imperial times, I'd think).
Last edited:
The senate was (if Im not wrong) detached from the people which mean the senators could get away with alot more than they could in the republic and the status of senator became inheritable in two generations or something like that. Also the senators had alot of Power over the emperor who could not do whatever he wanted because if the senate was feed up with him he would be killed so the emperor could never stray to far from the senate. The senators was powerful enough that the empire had to make laws such as forbidding senators to visit Egypt without permission.
The emperor also if Im not wrong removed much of the faction issues the senate had in the past and in a way protected the senators from the people and maybe themself as well. In return the senate legitimised the emprors actions.
There was also the powerful Equites class who controlled much of the day to day work of the empire and then there was the military.
The emperors Role was kind of to combine these powerful classes but it meant that his Power was quite limited as it was divided into several parts and if any of them had enough the emperor would be dead. It seems the emperor was more a figurehead over a complicated system that run and controlled the empire and his Power was limited to how much respect he could command over the ruling elite.
For the common people the empire meant that citizenship lost its value as everyone eventually became Citizens and Citizens basically got the status non Citizens had Before while the elite classes got more and more Power (not just the emperor). Maybe that is why the empire eventually failed.
The difference between the republic and the empire seems to me that in the republic the senate was the Power behind Everything while in the empire there was several powerful institutions that run the empire with the emperor being the combining factor.
If anything the empire should probably both have senate factions or something similar like the republic does, maybe even consul elections and faction bonuses as well as the monarchy legtimacy and need for heir (with maybe Another pretender system which don't favor the emperors Children as much).
Last edited:
@Denkt, based on your comment. Do you think a CK2 style game would work for the imperial period. You could have barbarians invading as well.
That's why since announcement of Imperator I suggested that there shouldn't be clear division that monarchies have only court and republics only senate like it was in Eu: Rome.
We should be able to have both court and senate in the monarchy. Even if Senate in the Empire is not doing much it would still be fun to watch elections, factions etc
Transition of the Roman Empire to the full monarchy was a slow process finished by Dioclecian If I remember correctly who was the first Emperor to adopt monarchical diadem and splendor.
As far as I know we already have some laws that we can pass. Why not add there a law regarding senate? If monarch wants to share power with some kind of assembly like Spartan kings did he should be able to do so. If someone wants to abolish senate it also shouldn't be a problem. More laws to customize government would be fun.
One of the challenges with describing how the Roman senate operated during the Imperial Period is that it changed over time. During some periods the senate wielded substantial authority on paper but almost none in reality while during others the senate was vital for selecting emperors and even removing them when they went too far. The military could act as a strong counter weight to the political influence of the Roman Senate. The combined political power of the elites who made up the senate could also sway ambitious commanders to their cause. This is especially noticeable in the Crisis of the Third Century. This becomes a larger and larger factor in the late Empire where civil wars between powerful generals became the norm. I guess you could say that sword beats paper in the Roman Empire.
While Rome isn't a perfect example of a republic ruling an empire, it does prove that a republic can. I would definitely like to see an upgrade for republics as they grow. Besides trying to balance the advantages an empire receives from having access to 4 ideas, it also make for a fun goal to work towards on an expansionist Carthage run for example.
While Rome isn't a perfect example of a republic ruling an empire, it does prove that a republic can. I would definitely like to see an upgrade for republics as they grow. Besides trying to balance the advantages an empire receives from having access to 4 ideas, it also make for a fun goal to work towards on an expansionist Carthage run for example.
I hope for a "Imperium"-DLC which offers the "principate" "res publica" of Augustus where ideally the so-called emperor is the first citizen of the res publica, ingame its a monarch who has to work with the senate...this could be the advanced form of the republic...as it ideally was (in reality the centralization of power of Augustus was so immensive that the senate kept no real veto-power)
It would be a nice addition to have the ability to "reform the republic", to simulate it needing to adapt in order to successfully administer the larger territory. It would be fun both from a gameplay and alternate history perspective. : )
This is flat out wrong. You can become a dictatorship as a republic and a dictatorship has 4 national idea slots.
.png "Screenshot (25).png")
Last edited: