Despotism and Monarchy

[polypheus]

I don't know exactly what the tech tree looks like but one thing I have felt for some time is that "Monarchy" arrived far too early in the game.

Until the Middle Ages, pretty much all govts were the Civ equivalents of "Despotism" including the mighty Roman Empire and this should also be reflected in the game.

If Monarchy comes later in the game (say at approximately the same time that "Monotheism" appears), then various problems are solved including ICS (assuming that despotism is modelled correctly so that too rapid expansion would cause massive corruption, negatively affect development, etc.)

Also if Monarchy can only be obtained along a longer, more "cultural" path, the player would also suffer if he takes a more "militaristic" path in the tech tree early so as to force the player to make choices and trade-offs.

[Ecthy]

true, you can't compare an ancient monarchy with a medieval monarchy or a modern constitutional monarchy (parlamentary, whatever...)...

but since despotism really sucks, "monarchy" should mean something like an ancient governemtn.... etc, you'll have to compare those things... in scenarios, you have to see it in relative ways (in CIV 2)

I think they should give us more governments in civ3, to avoid difficulties liek that

[cyril25376]

I disagree.
The Roman empire was not a despotism. It was for a long time a republic - think of the senate. Augustus becomes the first emperor of the Roman empire - which is in civ therms a monarchy.

[jsw363]

Here's a link:

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/screens/0,10865,2801449-2,00.html

Now you have the tech tree. I agree that perhaps some incarnations of monarchy are best suited to the middle ages/ renaissance, but looks like it's not gonna happen.

[S. Kroeze]

Re: Despotism and Monarchy

Originally posted by polypheus
I don't know exactly what the tech tree looks like but one thing I have felt for some time is that "Monarchy" arrived far too early in the game.

Until the Middle Ages, pretty much all govts were the Civ equivalents of "Despotism" including the mighty Roman Empire and this should also be reflected in the game.

If Monarchy comes later in the game (say at approximately the same time that "Monotheism" appears), then various problems are solved including ICS (assuming that despotism is modelled correctly so that too rapid expansion would cause massive corruption, negatively affect development, etc.)

Also if Monarchy can only be obtained along a longer, more "cultural" path, the player would also suffer if he takes a more "militaristic" path in the tech tree early so as to force the player to make choices and trade-offs.

Interesting point, yet I think before discussing this, one should try to define both 'Despotism' and 'Monarchy'. What makes 'Despotism' a 'Despotism' and what makes a 'Monarchy' a 'Monarchy'.
AND: -most important- what's the essential difference between these types of government, which in my view are rather similar.

[Ribannah]

Re: Re: Despotism and Monarchy

Originally posted by S. Kroeze


Interesting point, yet I think before discussing this, one should try to define both 'Despotism' and 'Monarchy'. What makes 'Despotism' a 'Despotism' and what makes a 'Monarchy' a 'Monarchy'.
AND: -most important- what's the essential difference between these types of government, which in my view are rather similar.

The difference is that Monarchy has laws. It would perhaps come a bit later in the tech tree if we had some techs preceding Code of Laws, such as first The Calendar and then The Council. That would move the root of the tree back several millennia though. Then again, Ceremonial Burial is also way older.

There are different ways to make ICS less powerful - not that it should though, there are other equally powerful strategies in the game.
But not allowing a town to grow beyond size 1 until it has built a Town Hall will most certainly do the trick.
Another way would be not to grant Monarchy all its (corruption) benefits until Feudalism, too, has been discovered. Of course then everybody would simply go for The Republic instead (some people already do anyway), which comes just as early in the tree. Not that that can't be changed, too.

[Father Beast]

I disagree with polypheus. I wrote a column on this subject sometime back, I'll try to find out which one....


Anyway, I think that despotisms act much like barbarians. the chief and everyone else is only interested in bringing home spoils and booty, not in expanding their reins of power, because intermediaries can't neccesarily be trusted. thus the corruption rate.

A monarchy, to me, is when several "kings" of cities band together and appoint a High King" the kind of king we are normally used to. the lesser kings then become the nobles of the new kingdom, able to partially administrate their own areas, but also answerable to the crown. I think this is available from way back, such as in egypt or babylon. to call everything before 1500 a despotism is a darn wide interpretation of the word.

Rome is perhaps the best example of an empire. These are different from kingdoms in that they are generally expansionist, but allow fealty and tribute from kingdoms they absorb, instead of just conquering.

the matter of the government of an empire can vary. the romans had their peculiar form of representation largely because of their distaste for kings, although they later leaned heavily in that direction with their emporers. Other empires were basically monarchic in nature.

[Jonny]

Before you call everyting before the Middle Ages a despotism, let's review what Monarchy means.

Mon (mono) = 1
Archy = govern, government

It means government by one person, which is similar to oligarchy, which is what some Greek states had. Therefore, Monarchies and similar governments did exist before the Middle Ages.

Also: should feudalism become a type of government?

[splangy]

Originally posted by Jonny


Also: should feudalism become a type of government?

i always thought it should, it would have high corruption but a large military. however in order to represent fudalism you need some internal fueding, somthing that most people would NOT like so it would be underused, but maybe they could change despotism to fuedalism? but then we need the fudealistic tech replaced and in the end you gain only a little realism but we can dream .

[Provost Harrison]

Feudalism should alter some of the parameters of Monarchy; perhaps related to military support or levels of corruption...

[S. Kroeze]

The difference is that Monarchy has laws. It would perhaps come a bit later in the tech tree if we had some techs preceding Code of Laws, such as first The Calendar and then The Council. That would move the root of the tree back several millennia though. Then again, Ceremonial Burial is also way older.

When using this criterium, Monarchy would be rather old.

'The famous Code of Law issued by Hammurabi (1792-1750BC) can no longer be considered as 'the most ancient in the world' -we now possess similar documents from the reigns of Ur-Nammu(2112-2095BC), Lipit-Ishtar(1934-1924BC) and Bilabama(c~1970BC), not counting the 'reforms' of Urukagina(c~2350BC)- but it is still the most complete and as such deserves more than a few words.

Indeed the Mesopotamians were never ruled by any other system than a 'common law', handed down from reign to reign and occasionally modified to fit the social and economic conditions prevalent at a given period. One of the first acts of every ruler, at least since Urukagina, was to 'ordain mêsharum', a word which can be translated by 'justice', but which in this context covered a number of other things, such as remitting certain debts and obligations and fixing prices of certain commodities -an efficient way of regulating the economy of the country. This is what is meant, for instance, by the formula of the second year of Hammurabi: "he established justice in the country", and a good example of a mêsharum-act has survived in the 'edict' of King Ammišaduqa(1646-1626BC), one of Hammurabi's successors, published in the late fifties. In all other matters the new king simply applied the laws of his predecessors, thereby ensuring a continuity in tradition which, in this domain as in others, was one of the main feutures of the Mesopotamian civilization.

In the course of the reign, however, social and economic changes occurred which required the laws to be adjusted, and the king pronounced sentences on a number of isolated cases for which no precedent could be found. These royal decisions (dînat sharrim), duly recorded and eventually collected together to be used for reference by the judges of future generations, formed the so-called 'Codes of Law', and we possess several such copies of the Code of Hammurabi on clay tablets, ranging from the Old Babylonian period to the time of the Chaldean dynasty(sixth century BC).'
(source: G.Roux: 'Ancient Iraq', 1992)

Anyway, I think that despotisms act much like barbarians. the chief and everyone else is only interested in bringing home spoils and booty, not in expanding their reins of power, because intermediaries can't neccesarily be trusted. thus the corruption rate.

A monarchy, to me, is when several "kings" of cities band together and appoint a High King" the kind of king we are normally used to. the lesser kings then become the nobles of the new kingdom, able to partially administrate their own areas, but also answerable to the crown. I think this is available from way back, such as in egypt or babylon. to call everything before 1500 a despotism is a darn wide interpretation of the word.

I agree more with this militaristic interpretation of Despotism, yet here is another problem. Never in history did "kings" of cities of their own free will band together to appoint a High King, actually diminishing their own power. Instead the unification of Egypt(c~3100BC) by Narmer, of Mesopotamia by Sargon(2334-2279), of India by Ashoka(268-231BC) and of China by Qin Shi-huangdi(246-210BC) were all accomplished by force of arms. With the development of the War chariot and Horseback riding the world had become more bellicose. The oldest kings of Sumer, Egypt, India and China all were priests!

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze


I agree more with this militaristic interpretation of Despotism, yet here is another problem. Never in history did "kings" of cities of their own free will band together to appoint a High King, actually diminishing their own power. Instead the unification of Egypt(c~3100BC) by Narmer, of Mesopotamia by Sargon(2334-2279), of India by Ashoka(268-231) and of China by Qin Shi-huangdi(246-210) were all accomplished by force of arms. With the development of the War chariot and Horseback riding the world had become more bellicose. The oldest kings of Sumer, Egypt, India and China all were priests!

Actually, I have this, possibly wrong, tendency to think that they banded together for protection against a military threat. if it went on long enough, the appointed head of the kings stayed in charge of the combined armies, and allocated more power to himself as time went on.

The idea of kings as priests has persisted all through monarchy, with the "divine right" of kings. the language still persists in some places - "James, by the grace of God" - suggesting that god himself put the king on the throne.

come to think of it, it makes sense that ceremonial burial is neccessary for monarchy.

[jsw363]

I think that it's confusing to use the terms despotism and monarchy because despotism describes the government style whereas monarchy describes the government structure. I found a definition for despotism below that makes clear the connection between the two. It would be better if there were a different name for what we consider to be "despotic government" since many types of government can be despotic in character despite thier structure. A better term for what most of us think of as despotic government would probably be autocracy. The link below clarifies my point.

Despotism- a government by an absolute ruler unchecked by effective constitutional limits to his power. In Greek usage, a despot was ruler of a household and master of its slaves. The title was applied to gods and, by derivation, to the quasi-divine rulers of the Middle East. In the Byzantine Empire, despot was a title of honor of the emperors and their relatives and of vassal princes of the tributary states and dignitaries of the Eastern Church. The Ottoman Empire perpetuated the term as applied to church officials and territorial princes. The 18th-century doctrine of the Enlightenment influenced such absolutist rulers as Frederick the Great of Prussia, Catherine II of Russia, and Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II toward a rule of beneficent intent known as benevolent despotism.

http://www.slider.com/enc/15000/despotism.htm

As for feudalism, I think that it perhaps better describes the economic condition of the middle ages rather than a governmental model. I think of feudalism, or manorialism, as the system which existed between serfs and their lord, where serfs had to work the land in exchange for protection from the lord. SO I don't really think that this is a governmental term either.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

As regards the duties involved in it, feudalism may be defined as a contractual system by which the nation as represented by the king lets its lands out to individuals who pay rent by doing governmental work not merely in the shape of military service, but also of suit to the king's court.

This just shows how different governments with the same basic structure can be completely different based on their characteristics. I would personally prefer a government list that included autocracy, monarchy and oligarchy as separate choices. (As the model for oligarchy I was thinking of Renaissance Venice as the model) I think that these choices could accurately reflect most of the primitive government models we're talking about.

[Recurve]

Weren't the Pharoahs monarchs? The English were about 4,500 years behind the Eqyptians on this one.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Instead the unification of Egypt(c~3100BC) by Narmer, of Mesopotamia by Sargon(2334-2279), of India by Ashoka(268-231BC) and of China by Qin Shi-huangdi(246-210BC) were all accomplished by force of arms.

A reunification in the case of Shi Huangdi.

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
The oldest kings of Sumer, Egypt, India and China all were priests!

Not sure about other places, but the oldest kings of China weren't priests for the very simple reason that religion didn't take hold. There was some kind of pantheism and ancestral worship, but no formal religions a la Hinduism. Thus there was no priesthood. The earliest king, Huangdi ("Yellow Emperor") was a tribal chieftain that unified a number of tribes.