Why no empire version of republic?

[Denkt]

This is flat out wrong. You can become a dictatorship as a republic and a dictatorship has 4 national idea slots.

The dictatorship is a monarchy not a republic. The issue is not that a republic can not turn into a four slot government but that there is no four slot government that is a republic.

Paradox just reflecting reality, Republics just can't compete.

And yet Rome went from not controlling even whole of Italy to controlling pretty much all land around the mediterranean as well as more while being a republic and by far more successful than any monarchy in the game timeframe.​

 

[Thure]

How would a advanced republic be called?

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

How would a advanced republic be called?

Empire. From imperium, a term meaning republican executive authority (as contrasted with it's monarchical equivalent, the regnum).

 

[Derek Pullem]

Isn't the next step from a Republic in terms of centralisation of power (which is what the national ideas effectively do) a dictatorship? An Empire adds the hereditary aspect which is anathema to the republican establishment. Dictatorships however have a long history under the Republic of being imposed when necessary.

 

[Highlordelliot]

Are you sure its not an available mechanic instead of the players not meeting the conditions to form an imperial level republic during the stream?.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

An Empire adds the hereditary aspect which is anathema to the republican establishment.

As above, if we go by period definition of the terms, then "empire" has nothing to do with being hereditary. The term comes from a specifically republican term, imperium, the executive power granted by election that was the dream of every politican in the Res Publica ever since Tarquin was deposed. But darnest if he was after the monarchical regnum, that was a term of slander at best (e.g. either or both of the Gracchi were slandered as being after regnum).

 

[imperial.]

Dictatorship and Oligarchy should be under the Type: Republic. Also yes, Empire isn't exclusive to Monarchy but to Sovereign States as a whole.

Definition : 1. 'an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a sovereign state.'
2. 'a large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group.'

 

[Nimic]

As above, if we go by period definition of the terms, then "empire" has nothing to do with being hereditary. The term comes from a specifically republican term, imperium, the executive power granted by election that was the dream of every politican in the Res Publica ever since Tarquin was deposed. But darnest if he was after the monarchical regnum, that was a term of slander at best (e.g. either or both of the Gracchi were slandered as being after regnum).

While this is true, clearly the word Empire as used in the game refers to the much more modern definition.

 

[Ezumiyr]

There's no such thing as a natural progress from "republic" to "monarchy" as a republic grows in power. In fact, Rome was still a republic when it was already the size of an empire (and a big one). There's no reason to thing that autocracy is a better government form to rule a big territory than a republic.

It's just that historically, the big empires of the antiquity were either monarchies or other forms of autocracies. But it didn't have to stay this way, and in many occasions Rome was close to become ruled by the Senate again.

If anything, Rome should probably have access to an empire-tier republic. Republics aren't less effective, and in the antiquity they were more like oligarchies anyway. Just call that a great republic.

 

[Derek Pullem]

As above, if we go by period definition of the terms, then "empire" has nothing to do with being hereditary. The term comes from a specifically republican term, imperium, the executive power granted by election that was the dream of every politican in the Res Publica ever since Tarquin was deposed. But darnest if he was after the monarchical regnum, that was a term of slander at best (e.g. either or both of the Gracchi were slandered as being after regnum).

Acknowledged. But as others have said the Empire in Imperator comes from a Monarchy not a Republic. And an elected monarch is anachronistic in this era (although not for the Roman Empires namesake later). So Dictatorship fits better with a more centralised Republic than Empire.

Otherwise you could say that all state structures could be Empires as all could have the nebulous "Imperium".

 

[Derek Pullem]

There's no such thing as a natural progress from "republic" to "monarchy" as a republic grows in power. In fact, Rome was still a republic when it was already the size of an empire (and a big one). There's no reason to thing that autocracy is a better government form to rule a big territory than a republic.

It's just that historically, the big empires of the antiquity were either monarchies or other forms of autocracies. But it didn't have to stay this way, and in many occasions Rome was close to become ruled by the Senate again.

If anything, Rome should probably have access to an empire-tier republic. Republics aren't less effective, and in the antiquity they were more like oligarchies anyway. Just call that a great republic.

The map you post is telling as it describes a civil war between two would be Dictators - Caesar and Pompey. Just that Pompey never quite managed to get the Senate to approve his candidacy even though it was proposed. Whereas Caesar "eliminated" the opposition in the Senate. Dictatorship is fine for a centralised Republic.

 

[Augustus93]

The dictatorship is a monarchy not a republic. The issue is not that a republic can not turn into a four slot government but that there is no four slot government that is a republic.

Yes, that is true but I finally understand what you want. You want to eat the cake and have it too. A republic gets other bonuses that a monarchy doesn't. Sure, you would be stuck with 3 national idea slots but look at all the benefits from being a republic that a monarchy doesn't get.
1. You are in power for only 5 years instead of for life, a bad monarch will be there for life.
2. You get various bonuses from the different factions that does offset the additional national idea slots that empires get (but not normal monarchies so you will be more powerful than normal monarchies).
3. You can be a bit more flexible with loyalty as far as I know because they will reset after 5 years so who cares if you are a bit unpopular at the end of your term, with monarchies this is not the case because most of the time you would be ruling for far longer than 5 years.
4. Monarchies have to worry about pretenders who might start a civil war over who should be the next ruler, not so much a problem in a republic.

 

[Vaar]

There's no such thing as a natural progress from "republic" to "monarchy" as a republic grows in power. In fact, Rome was still a republic when it was already the size of an empire (and a big one). There's no reason to thing that autocracy is a better government form to rule a big territory than a republic.

It's just that historically, the big empires of the antiquity were either monarchies or other forms of autocracies. But it didn't have to stay this way, and in many occasions Rome was close to become ruled by the Senate again.

If anything, Rome should probably have access to an empire-tier republic. Republics aren't less effective, and in the antiquity they were more like oligarchies anyway. Just call that a great republic.

Were republics as effective as empires? Over the time-frame that the game takes place republics start to fall apart and there are no large republics by the games end or anytime after that until possibly America. The republics of later eras, while powerful, were small. All powerful republics fell to corruption in the end.

So, should there be a more powerful form of republic? Historically speaking Rome was by far the most powerful republic outside of America and it's republic collapsed during the time-frame of the game along with many others.

 

[Thure]

Empire. From imperium, a term meaning republican executive authority (as contrasted with it's monarchical equivalent, the regnum).

Problematic, because we need something to make a difference between both government forms.

 

[Denkt]

Yes, that is true but I finally understand what you want. You want to eat the cake and have it too. A republic gets other bonuses that a monarchy doesn't. Sure, you would be stuck with 3 national idea slots but look at all the benefits from being a republic that a monarchy doesn't get.
1. You are in power for only 5 years instead of for life, a bad monarch will be there for life.
2. You get various bonuses from the different factions that does offset the additional national idea slots that empires get (but not normal monarchies so you will be more powerful than normal monarchies).
3. You can be a bit more flexible with loyalty as far as I know because they will reset after 5 years so who cares if you are a bit unpopular at the end of your term, with monarchies this is not the case because most of the time you would be ruling for far longer than 5 years.
4. Monarchies have to worry about pretenders who might start a civil war over who should be the next ruler, not so much a problem in a republic.

However monarchies do have advantages over republic:

1. If you have a good ruler you get to keep him for a long time while republics may get some poor leaders from time to time.
2. Monarchies get +15% freemen happiness at 100% legtimacy and freemen seems to be the hardest pop to keep happy
3. Monarchies don't have to deal with the senate which can limit your actions
4. Characters don't lose loyalty because the leader is not in their faction
5. Ruler can be used as a general without any need to worry about loyal cohorts while republic the leader will be replaced and become a normal character with loyal cohort problem.
6. You need to be more careful about popularity and prominence in a republic as it influence who become the next leader also it is easier to keep a monarch popular than a republican leader who will be replaced.

So I say that monarchies have about as good advantages as republics do.

Were republics as effective as empires?

Well in terms of expansion the Roman republic wins by far over the Roman empire, managing go from pretty much a city state to an superpower while defeating many powerful foes. While Roman empire managed to expand further, these expansion look far less impressive consider how powerful the republic already was at that Point. The empire also saw losing land over time while the republic while having setback was able to bunch back and grow stronger and stronger.

In terms of stability, the early empire was more stable but around 200 CE, the stability began to break down and the crisis of the third century was probably as bad as the civil wars the roman republic had.

From what I understand the Roman republic greatest advantage was it encouraged competition while the empire did not and maybe less and less so the more from the republic it progressed and without the drive to conquer more land to improve your position in the senate and maybe mediocracy was encouraged given that the emperor or whoever in Power don't like competitors. And while competition may be bad if it cause civil war, it is great for expansion when used against foreign enemies.​

 

[Reman]

Paradox hates republics/democracies in all their games. They're bad or boring in CK2, EU4, and HoI4. Not sure about Vic2 or Stellaris since I haven't played those in a while, but I doubt they're much different.

Imperator will probably follow the same path