Victoria 3 and the Decline of the West
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2024
- Victoria 3 isn’t out yet but that won’t stop me from discussing how the game is reshaping the genre. In conjunction, I thought I’d bring up one of history’s stranger yet influential contributors, a man named Oswald Spengler.
I promise this video isn't bait.
__________________________
00:00 intro
03:23 Eurocentrism
06:10 Victoria 3 and her Changes
11:16 The Many Faces of Oswald Spengler
18:21 Spengler and Eurocentrism
21:36 Victoria 3 and her Thoughts
23:23 Conclusion
27:13 Outro
__________________________
@ThreeArrows video:
• TH-cam and the Politi...
Victoria 3 video on colonial:
• Victoria 3 | Monthly U...
Victoria 3 on war:
• Victoria 3 | Monthly U...
Vic 3 diary on decentralized nations:
www.victoria3game.com/en/news...
Map background used:
www.loc.gov/item/2009579466/ - เกม
Hi. I forgot to include the citation for the text about Spengler's academic integrity and voting record, which, in specific was from this website, which itself cites a particular edition of Decline and a biography:
campuspress.yale.edu/modernismlab/oswald-spengler/
I did not have the means to look at those editions but I have no reason to believe that paragraph lied to me (or any of us, I suppose).
Nice website dude
If you're concerned about it, just check any edition of the cited work. Chances are one specific paragraph wouldn't have changed. It might be on a slightly different page though.
they are planing to make the decentralized nations playable, that was in one of the first diares
I know you're a bleeding heart liberal but even me who lives in Africa feels far less for you, your kind and even less for your brothers the Africans and yes there was vacant land do not believe me? ok read about the genocide called the Mfecane by all means. it was so bad that it did leave the land vacant and barren.
Don’t worry about playing the decentralized nations they’re just saving that for a paid DLC of course.
NOT ONLY 2 DLCS 80 DLCS
I don't get why people keep vomitting this shit. They are not playable because being able to lead a nation of people who are by definition "decentralized" is a contradiction. They exist, they are a culture, here is where they are on the map, but they care little for european definitions of civilization. They aren't gonna be playable, its like asking if every NPC in GTA will be playable.
And their mechanics will be added to base game after 4 years after launch of the dlc
@@BlueHawkPictures17 have you played paradox games before? It doesn’t matter if they are decentralized you can still figure out a way to play as them and centralize the nation and it’ll cost $20-$40.
Just because a nation is decentralized doesn’t mean it is impossible to make it playable 😂😂
@Danny L no that's realistic
“Try to limit the player from committing direct atrocities at times, at least.”
Stellaris: 👀
The Naavi aren’t real so they can’t cancel you on Twitter
@@hiagocaesar9311 i wana be the first person to meet space aliens ..... and fuck
You have to be human for human rights to apply
What atrocities can one commit in Victoria 2?
@@JUAN_OLIVIER victoria 2 did nothing wrong
I think the true simulation present in Paradox games isn't the simulation of historical events, but the simulation of historical mindsets.
This is something I first noticed when playing Crusader Kings. When I was in my history classes, I looked back on the Hapsburgs and Henry VIII and all the kings of Europe with a lot of judgement. I thought they must have been psychopaths, ones who did all their unsavory things because they went wild with the power of their state being at their beck and call. But then you sit down and try to play the ruling dynasty of Hungary for 600 years-- and you suddenly get it?? Why people married their siblings, called crusades, tortured and executed, didn't give a shit about average people-- by putting you in the decision making chair, Paradox games MAKE you re-evaluate your modern lens on the past.
And I've definitely had times where I stop and realize that wait.... EU4 doesn't really have an explicitly stated goal? And oh lord I just killed like 500,000 Ming Chinese, not to mention half as many of MY OWN COUNTRYMEN, all for a handful of provinces?! Good God! Is this REALLY all worth it, just to build a "great nation" on the backs of the dead? And... that's a cool open question to ask yourself as a result of gameplay! It's the difference between judging the actions of a stranger who died 400 years ago, and judging the choices you literally just made.
So I think the Vicky 3 approach of saying to the player "Oh yes there are nations here, but decentralized and open for the taking!" is actually quite smart. Because if you DO decide to partake, then you do it to get a leg up or to prevent someone else from threatening your state-- you're never under the illusion that nobody is there and you're doing no wrong. But you're also in a position where, given the circumstances and the powers that be, you can JUSTIFY that wrong in service of your own self interests.
That change of mindset doesn't (and shouldn't) make us blindly agree with the past... but it does perhaps make it easier for us to understand it on its own footing.
I would also agree with this comment and add apon this, As "Narrative" of the game in GUI text form also feels like the mindset of the history
In Eu4, all actions you take are considered by the GUI text (kind of like a narrator) as a Positive action with a flair of self-centered imperialism
When your ally joins your war: "X nation has joined our invincible armies into battle!"
When an ally breaks an alliance: "The treacherous X has broken our alliance with our noble nation."
every action you take is considered pragmatic, noble, and ingenious.
and every action taken by foreign nations are actions of obvious ploy, greed, and immorality
Victoria 3 supports this by it's main core mechanic, Prestige. A measure of how prestigious your nation is, and it makes you mimic the historical great powers at the time's callousness.
Support the poor when they're starving? I'd rather not lose 12 prestige, so...
Colonial cruelty that might become a scandal? Cover it up before we lose prestige!
Inching towards a Great War with multiple great powers because you won't back down on a claim for a couple miles of land? I'd rather kill millions of my own citizens than lose face in the global community!
This is quite the interesting view on paradox games and what you can learn from them.+
when i killed all those portuguese and south america tribe native in eu4, i paused for a little and think in my mind. is it worthy to kill all of those people for mere profit pf my nation? build up all those money from these people misery? killing people for their homeland so your people can live in it? after 30 seconds of thinking.....i resume the slaughter and continue to colombia and mexico (yes it's worth it)
The games lack many of the payoffs for being a large country, especially in a world where people do not care about annexation as much. They would be hard/impossible to implement without people getting mad for what they suggest. The only nations that big are modern and no one can agree on why/what good/bad things with did/do/will do.
Also really important religious things like making Catholicism without a set hierarchy and destroying/letting be destroyed the Kaaba to avoid annoying religious blocks pushing whatever random nonsense they just came up with would be too controversial.
Although why the Abbasid Caliphate is not a formable nation in Eu4, despite still existing and having been one of the most important nations in world history ever is beyond me.
Great point of view also good writing
I always felt that Victoria 2 was so focused on the Great and Secondary powers in Europe that Africa was intentionally only partially filled out to represent how it was viewed by a lot of Europeans at the time. This does seem to match my knowledge of African exploration by Europeans, which didnt really take off in earnest until after Victoria II's start date. Either that or they just ran out of budget and having a developed africa was an afterthought which never came to fruition.
I generally side that it was a conscious choice of lens rather than a developer resources constraint- and I do understand the lens they chose, because it facilitates the euro focused gameplay. I think Victoria 3 has found a pretty ideal balance (and has the budget to create more nuanced systems).
You’re very right about the primary and secondary focus- the dream of the game is never to just “do okay” get sphered, and not have access to half the mechanics, after all.
It seems odd that Victoria 2 didn’t really represent the African states that existed historically or in EU IV. I think it could have perpetuated a view among those not as historically educated as others on the continent that was inaccurate.
@@somethingelse516 eu4 is not any different about its Eurocentrism tho, all the innovations pop out in Europe, and other natuons must catch up to it
@@durianjaykin3576 you’re right that EU IV is very Eurocentric (perhaps unsurprising considering the name) but with the DLC especially it’s does a better job than Victoria but the bar is low
I mean, to a degree with any historical game, Eurocentrism is necessary to a degree. The reality is, in the roughly 100 year timespan of the game, you could take the God-Emperor of Mankind, give him control of Ethiopia, and he wouldn't be able to match the power of the British Empire, Germany, or France.
I think Vic 2 took the shortcut of neglecting central Africa because it wasn't really economically vital to the functioning of the 19th century great power politics, except for the prestige of African colonies. None of the African colonies were ever remotely profitable, and didn't really contribute to the overall power of their overlords except as occasionally useful naval bases and for reprovisioning (and later refueling) of naval vessels. Raw materials were just so much more easily collected in the Americas, India and Southeast Asia at the time.
I always felt that the "land for grabs" mentality the game makes you adopt is intentional. After all you're (usually) playing as a colonial power who historically had this view of the world and didn't give a hoot about the natives. The scramble for Africa really was a race against your rivals to secure as much land and resources as possible. I feel like vic2 simulates this mentality very well.
It's almost like the creator of this video doesn't understand mercantilism or how economies in this period worked.
But does it make you actually question that mentality? Or just reinforce it’s assumptions
@@SketchyHippopotamus Why would it need me to question it? It's a video game. I play it for fun.
When I click a button to form a protectorate and instantly see the borders of my chunky African colony grow, I'm not thinking in my head "colonialism was justified". I just get the dopamine rush and think about how profitable my factories are going to become.
Same thing when I capture Constantinople as the Turks in Age of Empires 2. It doesn't make me think it was a good thing. It's just really fun to play and experience it through the format of the video game.
@@SketchyHippopotamus Maybe it's just a game, a game where you colonize Africa. Or did you want a game over screen with a giant "YOU'RE RASCIST AND IMPERIALIST, BEGONE FOUL IMPERIALIST, I SHALL HAVE NO MORE OF THEE!"
It's a historic game set in the 1800's, if Africa isn't conquered or it's somehow a major power, it's suddenly a fantasy game more than anything.
@@SketchyHippopotamus Which assumptions would you say are presented by Victoria III?
The African continent was empty to make it easier and more accessible for the AI to colonize it. It was a mechanic necessity. Not to mention the AI was very bad at naval invading foreign lands
Vanilla Empire Total War hahaha
Enemy AI's naval attacks often times resulted in shifting the balance of war into my favour.
Africa was "empty" as in sparsely populated back then. The population boom you see now wouldnt be possible without European medicine and technology
It would be nice if they could just make the AI work properly, and vic 3 is actually suppose have the AI control your military exclusively, which is fucking scary.
@@Figgy_23 thats like the Russian military
Self centered perspective is a common falling point of most people. I have no issues with viewing history through the lenses of your own culture and country history,and it often leads to pretty funny results. As an example, I'm Portuguese, and my entire history class consisted of stone age tribalism to bronze age to Roman Empire to Portugal. The rest is just Portugal. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't mentioned once
That is because you don't have infinite time to teach kids about history, making sure they know what their country has done and some of the big things other countries have done is most important. The HRE as a feudal state is not that intresting or special except for the reformation, which didn't directly spring up in portugal in any meaningfull sense. I see no other reason to mention the HRE in the average Portugese person's understanding of history.
@@bgs2004 To add to that if you have ever talked to any person not particularly interested in history that got through high school history. You can testify that even the little we teach them quickly falls off and they probably only remember the stuff they saw in movie and very broad strokes about general history.
In south Florida, we did Spanish colonization, and American history from the 1950s onward, lol.
@@bgs2004 Yes, precisely my point. Humans have have to manage limited resources, including time, so it makes no sense to dwell on things that have no bearing either on pragmatic action or personal identity. The HRE probably matters a great deal to Germans, but not to me. Same way the Fifth Empire doesn't matter to them, but it does to me.
I guess this reality sucks for Africans, because nationalism didn't have its origins in there and their cultures are still largely influenced by tribal and clan ties rather than national ones. Hell, given how arbitrary the borders of African countries are, a lot of them probably only exist, at least in their present state, by the West's influence. So it makes perfect sense that they'd define their own identity based on their relation to the Western world.
@@Swenthorian In Central Florida, the Spanish are briefly mentioned then we fast forward to the Civil War. Ironic that we don't talk about the Spanish where I live despite it being a majority Hispanic community.
I am pretty sure the reason why Africa was so empty in Vicky 2 was because PDX is lazy, even european stuff was barely accurate.
Later mods like HPM and HFM did a way better job and also populated most of Africa with states (and a way to conquer them without spending infamy).
Also, written African history is virtually non-existent outside of a handful of tribes and kingdoms.
GFM is also great.
It would be pointless to play as a tribal nation in Africa because you would have a Stone Age tribe fighting off machine guns and dreadnoughts, it’s not worth the effort of implementing.
@@coatofarms4439 tbf countries like Ethiopia, the North African states, and Boer Republics all historically fought off European conquest.
@@GelloWello Those countries were either ancient like Ethiopia and Egypt and were only behind the Europeans by a generation or two and the Boers already had European technology, they had a base which could be built upon which tribes do not have. It's possible a tribe in EU4 could modernize because the technological gap isn't overly advanced (medieval to colonial) but the gap a stone age tribe would have to overcome is impossible, you would spend the entire game trying to reach the level of a Napoleonic nation before 1900 and there is no guarantee of success or independence because even a minor nation like Belgium or Portugal would steamroll.
To be fair accuracy isn’t the bread and butter of these games. It’s common to see someone like GB conquer all of Zanzibar or Spain getting all of West Africa before Europeans were remotely involved in Africa in EU4.
but EU4 is far less of a simulation game. especially since tinto took over.
People whining about Berber Coring Costs and the lack of Trade Companies being sock puppets for European Countries for eating Africa/India/China (before Vicky 2 as well) really... well... showed that the player base doesn't care much about history. Is it any wonder why Paradox gave up on the historical mapbook in favor of two-to-four starts?
@@Jay_Johnson tinto stinky
As an African I appreciate that you made such a video about my continent which is always so poorly represented in these Paradox strategy games. But Crusader Kings 3 went to great lengths to represent Africa well
As a Nigerian I greatly agree.
However, in my view, Victoria 3 is even better.
Played the leak and had an amazing time as the Oyo Empire and my anti-colonial yet imperial struggle.
Anti-colonial to the Europeans, Imperial to my neighbors.
Blurs the line of what is colonialism and what is imperialism, amazing game.
Africa is a hard continent to find history in sometimes, Not out of the lack of history of course but the issue is that many of it's cultures and people never left us long lasting ruins or written languages or if they did ones we can translate. And a lot of it was destroyed in the wars of colonies and the wars between the native people of the continent. I mean Africa does have history worth gazing into like for example The Mali Empire and Musa. Ghana Empire, Morocco, Egypt, Kush and Carthage (though that is Punic who are from Asia minor).
There is a lot to find there if one knows where to look. The problem for Africa and it's many civilizations was that Africa itself while rich in resources it also has many troubles in terms of climate, from huge deserts, to rainforests, swamps and mountains. Regions without much water. Africa is interesting indeed.
@@BasicLib how did you stop it crashing?
@@BasicLib Oh if you played this nation I assume you are a yoruba. I'm Cameroonian and unfortunately they mix my tribe with other tribes in this decentralized nation on the coast
@@ambroisep.p8706 Yh I am Yoruba
And oof I’m so sorry to hear that
Was there any prominent regional powers from the era form your tribe or one closely associated with your tribe ?
Hopefully they flesh out the decentralized nations more
I can remember they used to have the Ashanti as decentralized.
The entire point of making the region "empty" is to slow down conquest of the region. I'm not sure why this makes people so angry it's a game mechanic and it plays out much better than what we currently have in eu4. Unless they are going to model the negative aspects of those regions malaria/isolated populations/limited trade connections it's going to just make things worse.
"Unless they are going to model..." the malaria, at least, I am pretty sure they said they were going to model for expeditions. Which does make me wonder if this is more akin to terra incognita in EU4 where you need to send expeditions first. Big difference is it would seemingly have these groups unplayable at all, unlike EU4 where you just can't interact yet.
As for isolated populations, it looks like a lot of similar mechanics will be implemented.
well also there is little info and the political organisation pattern doesn't match that of other 'clickable' things, and the mechanics reflect more settlement
however, it is also inaccurate bc obviously there was interaction with population, centralised centres of power rwanda etc
Not being good enough to balance a game is not a reason to mis portray a whole continent.
@@clintharrisjr.6999 It is
@@clintharrisjr.6999 It ain't misrepresntation if there really was no big population center relevant enough to be represented as a nation on those places. Also, they take a lot of land to represent those decentralized places, which makes it funny to see the whole Patagonia seem like a united population before the Desert Conquest xD
But the question still remains: why Sokoto? It just feels so random. All the other aftrican countries like Ethiopia or Zulu have a famous history to Europeans but Sokoto feels so random. If the other African states where there it wouldnt stand out. But it’s the fact that it’s the only one.
Sokoto was pretty cool though.
@@OhSanjiBoi yeah but in the period of Vicky 2, it just isn’t a relevant power anymore
@@Bread-nx9fo No really true. It was pretty relevant power in West Africa even during it's final days.
@@Bread-nx9fo Isn't relevant in power? It had 10 million people, was the most powerful state in Western Africa and was on top of a major trans Saharan trade route and was bringing wealth to the region throughout its existence. It was literally one of the most important African states going into the 1800s.
@@hyperion3145 with all that relevance, it's still weaker than every other state in the world at the time
I think it has more to do with the impracticalities of inputting literally thousands of individual tribal states. But I think the Victoria Realism mod did a good job including major supra-tribal indigenous powers in Africa and North America that were not in the vanilla game.
well we don't even know what these tribal states would be at different times, and simulating their itneraction would be more difficult and would still be v different
@@mareksicinski3726 Okay, everyone brings this point up, but when they do it doesn’t seem they know all too much about the layout of contemporary African states (ie. not counting the people you could actually count as tribal) in spite of it.
If you looked into it just briefly you’d find only the most obvious parts of the continent left empty of state societies.
This is a great video-essay, and I'd like to disagree with parts of it... I think. Re: Vic3 and her Througts - it seems to me that you're overthinking this somewhat. Vic2 (and 3) is about simulating the 19th century, and letting the player influence that simulation. In our 19th century, the west won (in geopolitical terms, anyway), and there isn't really a world in which it doesn't.
Firstly because of the technological difference - an organized military armed with machine guns will, in almost any situation, beat a military which has outdated firearms at best, and spears and bows at worst.
Secondly, because given that any attempt at resistance can be defeated in a relatively inexpensive manner an attempt at expansion is inevitable - if you don't do it, another empire will, and they will get all of the resources you give up. So, better you than them.
It's perfectly reasonable, when simulating (alternate) history, to look from a non-eurocentric perspective, but within the scope of Victoria this perspective is limited by historical reality. With few exceptions African kingdoms were not in a position to challenge the colonizers, and those few exceptions - Ethiopia, Marocco, Egypt - are represented in the game. This is not to say that Vic3's system won't be an improvement - it'll add more detail, which for a simulation of history is always good, but it doesn't seem to me like a revolutionary change.
Two final notes: 1) obligatory _colonialismIsBad.txt_ 2) HPM fixes this.
Ethiopia won and wasn't colonised
The problem with lit crit has never been people overthinking it. This game lies in a cultural context, and ignoring it ignores a part of the game. Texts aren't just the methods by which we interact with them, and reducing them to that is cowardly and incomplete.
@@jasonhaven7170 Ethiopia was colonised by the Italians in 1936.
@@leagueofdead569 They were occupied during WW2, by your logic, France was colonised by Germany in 1941
@@jasonhaven7170 true but it was by most intents and purpouses the most developed sub-saharan state and as we all know it was an exception rather than a rule
Victoria's 2 way makes sense from a gameplay perspective if you ask me. Is there really a point in including a whole bunch of tribes that have no hope of catching up and being able to defend themselves from the great powers of the time? Countries that could, without much stretch, get to that point, like Ethiopia or Sokoto and the north Africans, were included.
Seriously, for all the talk about how HFM and HPM includes more African nations, has anyone (not including players from those countries and memers) actually played any of them?
Had Paradox have the same DLC policy for Vic2 they had ever since CK2, they would have implemented African tribes and the possibility to play them.
They probably just focused their resources on the morst important aspects of the game.
@Lazy Sorcerer Does it matter? You can to this kind of thing in EUIV and some do.
The challenge isn't creating an Empire. The challenge lies in remaining independent despite multiple Empires arising, who take interest in ones lands.
@Lazy Sorcerer Generally speaking, more player option is better. First nations in EU4 are a good time, especially if you are seeking a challenge.
@Lazy Sorcerer The DLC policy?
@Lazy Sorcerer Yes Lazy Sorcerer, the point of a silly game is to have silly scenarios. I wanna take your argument seriously, but you aren't making it easy.
Thank you so much for the subtitles! They're really helpful, and I appreciate the effort you put into them!
Thanks for that feedback. I've been using modified scripts, given that I already had some stuff written out but it's nice to see it's appreciated.
@@Rosencreutzzz the map india is also wrong in vic2 and vic3. Like the nawab of arcot is missing and Nagur should be bigger
I got here by randomly searching "Victoria 3" in the TH-cam search bar lmao.
Same but I didn’t enjoy the video..
I’m from Reddit haha
@@seffffee1333 was it edgy, woke or boring?
@@FazeParticles too much info
@@FazeParticles Boring
it's incredible for someone capable of producing videos of this quality to have less than even 3 thousand subscribers! honestly, can't thank you enough for your work!
I think it's kinda weird how people generally treat Africa. Sure the Vic2 map is too empty, but you can't expect it to function exactly like Europe because Africa is fucking massive and its geography overall is very different from that Europe, among other regions. It has a lot of regions with a merciless climate, fauna or landscape and we can expect a place like this to work exactly like every other region in the world, for better or for worse.
Almost like it's difficult to be non-Eurocentric and represent non-state nations in a game that's built entirely around the nation state model, especially when said nations have no clear borders and almost no written history of their own, other than the accounts of Europeans.
"Don't worry if it doesn't quite make sense yet...it never will" has got to be a great description of a lot of 19th to mid 20th century Germany thinking.
Criticising Victoria for being Eurocentric... Kinda seems like criticism of hoi4 Being militaristic
The video literally talks about how it isnt doing that.
The era of Europe conquering the whole world is eurocentric oh no, this channel is a joke.
@@Mightfox surprise suprise people watch video and jump to conclusion
@@siluda9255
I watched the video?
Just a comment about how silly I thought the original premise is
Hmm. Finished the video. Mixed thoughts... I feel like the video talked far too much about Spengler at the expense of Victoria 3 - but on the other hand really too short to really provide an accurate synthesis of Spengler's way of conceiving world history. Didn't come away with feeling that I learned much - I do hope others got more value outta it, tho. Maybe it's just me?
That said, 100% agree though with the need to decentre Eurocentrism in video gaming - at the state they're currently at, I really always scoff when people say they "learn" history from playing Paradox games. Glad to see the future's forward, at least!
@@furthestborealia1001 If you look around the world though most of their history is centred on themselves, why can't the west also centre their history on themselves. People will orientate their world view and view of history onto themselves. And as we get closer to present day in history Europe does creep into every corner of the world.
China has a very self centred view of the world and history even to this day
So does Japan, Middle east, and many of the other nations on earth. It is natural. And the bigger issue for a lot of countries their history is interweaved with that of their neighbours. Like Asia minor is always being in tangled in Europe history and so it North Africa.
I'm not saying we should ignore the rest of the world's history, not at all. But now let's not pretend Europe is the only one guilty of being obsessed with themselves in the lenses of history. China is a poster child example of that for most of their existence as well.
But we should not belittle western history like some people do or pretend it was only the west who in it's history committed genocides, slavery or crimes against humanity, Or start some over the top history fantasy history like some people do like Africa was secretly some super advanced civilization and then everyone else nicked there tech and made them go back to tribal society. Or claim this Roman emperor was black when he was not.
Everyone has there history can we not appreciate all of it without belittling others.
@@Historyfan476AD People in the west complaining their worldview is west-centric.
I don't know what people expect, honestly. I'm pretty sure in Japan, their history is very centered on them.
Not only is it normal, up until pretty recently that's the best that we could do.
@@Historyfan476AD What do you want from the science (!) of history? A better understanding of the history of our species, how the actions of the past shape our present and what we can learn from it or do you want/need confirmation how awsome you are and how insignificant the others are?
@@AlexanderFaust1404 I want nothing to be honest. I'm just tired of people belittling or insulting western history because that is the Trendy" or "moral" thing to do now at the moment. I get tired of some fool on twitter, tik tok or what making some "bold" statement about a historical figure or event (half time incorrect as well) and think they have proven how evil the west is.
I also just pointed out that people criticise European centralism, But then turn a blind eye to the fact everyone does it though And I named examples. And that it is normal.
I also am tired of folks bringing up all the dark moments the west have done, But are silent or even get angry when you point out everyone else on Earth also has skeletons in the closet like slavery, genocide, committed wars and invaded their neighbours.
And now these days we got people who make up utter fantasy like Africa was a real life Wakanda and Europe and China stole their tech off them and forced them back to tribal society. Or that certain roman emperors or other leaders where black really when they were not Like Hannibal.
I love the history of Europe but also Asia and even Africa and the Americas. I don't belittle any of them even though they also have many dark moments in their history. For example everyone talks about the Atlantic slave trade and how horrible it was, Which is true of course. But most of them miss out the detail of the fact most slave ships brought slaves from African tribes who enslaved their own neighbours for centuries before a European vessel arrived. Now if you mention this to some people they lose their minds and call you racist and victim blamer or say you made it up.
I don't want people blowing a horn about how great my people where, Our effect on the Modern world speaks for itself. Both the triumphs and failures, Our inventions but also our crimes.
The Romans didn't copy the Greek gods. They already had the pantheon through their similar cultural roots. The Greeks influenced the Romans in terms of the stories and mythology, but there was always a Deus Pitr.
Not so much copy as get heavily influenced. The Romans were more syncretic with their religion than most people can truly comprehend these days - if you weren't monotheistic, there's a shot your gods could find a place in the Pantheon once you got conquered.
Yeah I don't know why paradox always acts as if they are one in the same when they very clearly know how to create sectarian differences between religions within a certain group. The Roman and Greek religions are different enough to be separate.
It's okay to view the world from a European perspective. Every civilization makes sense of the world through their own subjective point of view, which makes the world more interesting.
The real question is are we making it from the modern European perspective or the Victorian one where africa, the americas and oceania were 'empty'
@Crumbsly we'll see
@@Jay_Johnson hopefully from the Victorian perspective, the setting would imply that. Besides, todays perspective is so inconclusive and sensitive that the gameplay would be simply unenjoyable.
@@Jay_Johnson for the sake of a game based on the Victorian Era I hope from the Victorian lense.
Not to mention gameplay wise lesser nations and tribal states little only serve the purpose of being food for major powers, and Flashpoint zones for major war. Having Africa full of its historically accurate tribal states would cause it to be colonized at a ridiculous rate, and not have land claim Flashpoint that break out in total war.
@@frogking5573 those are specific issues with EU4 and if you applied the same ahistorical version that vic 2 uses. This is an attempt to make the game more realistic of a simulation. You can get around that with a CK3 style de jure and de facto map. Sort of an extension of the spheres map mode and including mechanics for challenging that de jure map such as with Britain taking portugals unfulfilled claims on Zimbabwe Zambia and Malawi. Ideally I’d like a more detailed game when it comes to indirect rule maybe in a DLC where you can continue to play the game even as a protectorate of a European power. Be it the Indian or Arabian princely states. Egypt never ceased to exist, it was just under British occupation. The power struggles of control between a local government and their European ‘protector’ is an interesting and unexplored concept for time period.
Great video but I feel left hungry for more now. Don't be afraid to make longer videos.
I got here thanks to your post on the Vic3 subreddit, thanks for sharing it there I will definitely watch your other stuff.
I've only got one more for the series this is part of and after that I might pivot to a weird video about the Fable series, but I will absolutely return to GSGs and Historical Strategy pretty often, and definitely when Victoria 3 comes out.
This channel is exactly my cup of tea. Excited to watch the rest of your content!
The video title made unsure what I was in for but this was a very interesting analysis of history and how games portray it. Good video
When I read Spengler's words in your video, I immediately recalled the ideas of Alexandr Dugin (yes, that ultra-nationalist Russian philosopher whose daughter just got accidentally killed in an assassination attempt). They all imagine the world is occupied by multiple cultural entities each with a distinct life path and set of values. Their opposition to Eurocentrism, however, did not lead them to a progressive cause but rather enable them to be appropriated by an anti-Western imperialist project.
I've got another video (sorry if this sounds like I'm advertising, lol) about the Esoterics and how they took off in the late 1800s, particularly the Theosophists, who are...partially responsible for the Ariosophy (aryan theosophy) that was an early staple of the nazis, and made its way into being part of Dugin's beliefs, re: the mythical continent of Thule, etc.
and as a bonus, a lot of this was all happening at the same time, Spengler and the rise of German Esoteric movements.
I want to ask something that is possible unpopular: if true peace is ( currently ) impossible ( I would argue a lack of fear and increased cooperation, which are some of if not the most defining movement for global peace without military means ) - is crushing all rivals not preferable to having to deal with a bunch of squabbling opponents?
I am not arguing this from the perspective of individualist but a sort of societal morality.
Putin for instance went to w*r in Ukraine at least partially in order to further secure his own position via preventing the latter from joining the EU.
In a world where men like him rule, shouldn’t the west ( of which I am a part ) concern itself in terms of geopolitics at least partially with achieving total dominance? Is it not a moral imperative to ensure that the dangerous “others” are kept down since their “progression” on the road of what I would call the journey of authoritarianism, aka the fact that many influential people don’t look at corruption and single individual ( or perhaps more accurately focused individualist elitist ) authoritarianism as a problem or a warning but a sort of goal or instruction manual?
What if the great ( even more ) militaristic ( than at the time already conventional ) movements of the last century were right regarding the need to seek strength?
@@Arcaryon You are answering your own questions with your own words. "In a world where men like him rule, shouldn’t the west ( of which I am a part ) concern itself in terms of geopolitics at least partially with achieving total dominance?" Is this not true for Putin aswell? And what happens, if everyone now does it? Now everyone is standing at a stalemate of not being able to dominate the other one. This spirals down to the cold war (which in my opinion never ended but rather had a pause, a fresh breath of air in between). Either you accept, that you can't win or you make everyone lose (aka an all out nuclear war).
Edit: Oh and the "dangerous others" are a sole subject view. For Putin the west is the dangerous one, for Xi probably aswell, for the US its mostly China and a bit Russia, for the EU its basically only Russia. Also it creates kinda a paradox. By dominating the world or just the ones who are dangerous, you yourself become the most dangerous, therefore someone has to come and dominate you to become dangerous again. An endless cycle.
@@OlafJorigson "This spirals down to the Cold War (which in my opinion never ended but rather had a pause, a fresh breath of air in between). Either you accept, that you can't win or you make everyone lose (aka an all-out nuclear war)."
Before anything can freeze over, the mere realization of having enemies working hard to end up on top spirals down into action over simply waiting while one-sided deescalating and misunderstanding the intentions of our opponents erases what little remains after decades of hard-earned respite.
Even if you assume correctly that neither side can win ( I disagree - not only is keeping states such as Ukraine well-supplied is not just some pointless exercise, not only due to moralistic concerns but also since this kind of campaign furthers the Democratic position because it directly interferes with our enemies' movements and can give us the edge to outlast them economically as well in the long run ) - this entire affair was and is a matter of making the right moves such as at the VERY least actually acknowledging the fact that there is an arms race happening and that we would be VERY wise to enter it with all our might and to take back the initiative instead of waiting for the next "crisis" to topple even more of the global status quo.
Frankly, the idea that authoritarian and democratic systems can actually coexist side by side AS EQUALS is fairly absurd since the existence of the former threatens the latter and vice versa. Even the best authoritarian leader will, if given the opportunity, seek to expand his influence because they know what we know - that his position will only be truly secure if no opposition exists anywhere. And as democracies, we are certainly not exempt from pettiness either and know for instance that letting a powerful dictator rule undisturbed gives our own politicians some dangerous ideas.
Not even mention that for men such as Putin, every decent man with a conscience is dangerous. He is even worse than men like Bush because he doesn't step down after 8 years.
There is a bitter irony in watching H*tler himself joke about what countries should not be invaded in the Reichstag.
What countries should we consider worth sacrificing so Putin feels more secure and can satisfy the demands of his elites without actually improving his state?
Apart from Ukraine of course - perhaps the Baltics? Maybe Poland too?
I don't think this is an exercise we should engage in. The point of seeking dominance must also imo. not turn into an attempt to wipe out entire states but to enforce moderation if not reform in a foreign elite and this can only be done if the recourses necessary to do so are actually available.
@@Arcaryon Enforcing your own system/ideas onto someone else won't solve it aswell. You might get rid of Putin, because he is, from a western viewpoint, someone who only seeks to recreate his idea of a new russian empire. This might even be true from a general viewpoint, but its definetely different inside Russia.
Sure I agree with you, that such people and regimes should rather be stopped and reformed but using outside force rarely helps this case. Korea hasn't been able to reunite, Vietnam was a big mess, Libya is still in a struggle between different partys, Sudan split into two different states, subsaharan african countries rather turn to military leaders because of corrupt politicans and even in European and American democracies more authoritarian-sided parties win power.
In case of Ukraine and Russia, I am for defending the country of Ukraine against the Invasion by Russia. Then again, I don't want a permanent war situation as it stands with North and South Korea. Maybe Putin will lose his power, if he can't achieve a victory (which I can't even define these days as the goal posts won't stop moving).
I don't have a wonderful solution for all of this. I don't know how to establish a working democratic system after an authoritarian regime. I can only theorize and talk about it.
Personally I don't think you can change another country or the people with force of arms. The same as terrorism won't help their cause.
Again, this is theory work, I am not in a position to change anything nor do I have enough life or study experience to make too many intelligent/thoughtful remarks.
The Spangler Cultural history states as described here (race->culture->civilization->decline) is the same model that is now taught and preached to a wide audience in China by contemporary nationalist academic Hu Angang. Angang is particularity popular within the Chinese Communist Party as a leading academic which gives one some insight into their thinking on world history and comparative geopolitics.
Fascinating! …and concerning.
Wait why doesn't the literal communist party not take the Marxist view of history?
@@yddet4369 Because it is not convenient for cementing their monopoly of power.
@@douglasianscott3599 Makes sense in practical terms, but still pretty crazy in ideological terms.
@@yddet4369 Why doesnt the democratic republic of Korea have fair and free elections?
More VIC3 Content please, I love your deep format and incorporating academia into the discussion of a game, keep up the great work!
So glad that I found your channel - keep up the great work!
Excellent video! Maybe I just haven't found it yet, but I've not found many critical and thoughtful discussions on historical grand strategy games and the deeper ideas or messages behind them. It's nice to see you taking up the task, and putting good work into it as well.
What sort of narrative did you just conjure up? Usually conspiracy theorists have this same type of vague behavior, with the same flagrantly evidence-phobia theories craft.
@@dusk6159 I don't understand what you mean. I didn't mean to imply anything except that I haven't seen many other channels doing what this one is for this particular genre of video games, and that I appreciate the effort made on it.
@@dusk6159 the fuck?
Though Spengler was not the most clear representative of this, he certainly played a large role in forming an idea that you did not explicitly mention unfortunately.
There was a large trend in what could be called the "reactionary" ideology, where they were rarely, if ever, supportive of 19th century colonial ventures by their countries.
Many of them believed that they should much rather care for the internal contradictions and issues that were brewing under the surface in their countries. This led to a later development that could be called "ethno-pluralism", where, as a reaction to the universalizing and totalizing hegemonic tendencies of capitalistic liberal democracy asserting themselves over every country in the world, the idea was formed, that each group of people being allowed to develop themselves in accordance to their own cultures and customs instead of having to conform to a universal system of doctrines and rules.
This is fundamentally why Spengler's views are not exactly Eurocentric, they can be applied to all civilizations.
The bit before the outro is honestly too dismissive. One does not need to be reactionary or fatalistic to recognize that we are living in a state of profound confusion, in most countries that can be called western by the definition laid out in the beginning of the video. This understanding can even be found in the works of post-modernists, where they criticize the last vestiges of modernist optimism.
The people of Europe and the English-speaking colonial nations don't know what they believe or what their role in the world should be. This nihilistic chasm is precisely where the appeal of "reaction" comes from, it offers a direction that is familiar, something they recognize as part of their own culture and heritage, it provides a strong bulwark against nihilism and ideals that go beyond the petty self-interest and narcissism of the age. Dismissing it out of hand does not provide an answer to any of this.
Nihilism just seems like a by-word for mass depression.
@@James-ip8xs That's incredibly reductive
The question is how to rouse people under a common narrative, while also not letting the narrative spiral out of control.
@@geraldfreibrun3041 first rule that there are no solutions in an imperfect world only trade offs. Think of a slave escaping his master and what does he have outside? nothing but a desert of confusion and likely damning his children and next to the same fate until that crucible forges a new people.
@@riverman6462 Socrates would've laughed Sartre out of the room. At no other point in history were existentialists taken seriously, as they should not be.
Awesome video! Superb production value, I hope you keep making these!
Truly excellent video - had to subscribe for more - and your interpretation of Spengler and mixing it with Vicky 3 is great. More please.
look. they wuz not kangz.
Ooga booga now let me eat yo brainz cuh
Only mistake is that "begging a question" doesn't mean "Asking a question" around 6:30ish
Honestly, this isn't how I expected to learn that "begging the question" only means "asking" in a colloquial way and has a more formal function of being more like a leading question.
I bet y’all know each other irl
Didn’t expect you to see here lol
This is everything I love in one video. Maps, games, history and philosophy. Subscribed.
As an Uruguayan I have to stan you for being an enjoyer of Vicky Uruguay. I know getting into national history can be thought for foreigns.
Congrats for all the awesome videos! I am currently on a marathon
To be fair there are not many written source about Africa (except west and east Africa)
I hate when philosophers use convoluted and complex sentences and less common words. It's as if they just want to show off their wringing skills to prove how smart they are.
I can understand when some philosophers write complex sentences like lawyer would in order to cover their point, but even that can go too far.
People like Stephen Hawkins or Einstein (I know physicists not philosophers) partially became famous, because they used simple language to describe completed phenomenons and concepts.
I’d offer a bit of pushback here in that jargon and academic language are very useful for speaking between people with established terms-creating a shorthand for entire concepts and not having to start every conversation with a discussion of free will or whatever… but Spengler does not do that. In fact he muddies things, as with the “Apollonian” example- he cites Nietzsche as a massive inspiration and then used the term to mean something entirely different and it’s like…why are you doing this??
That said, I do also think that some writers get trapped within their obtuse language or genuinely don’t expect their writing to leave academia, or perhaps expect it to trickle down somehow. I don’t know how often people ever try and “sound smart”- I’m sure it happens but I would default towards them being more…caught up in the language than tedious for the sake of word count or whatever.
I do massively respect the writers who can “translate” their own work from academic to “pedestrian”(for lack of a better term).
I thought this as well until my friend let me watch some of his uni philosophy lectures and the level of layering of concepts means that cannot reasonably describe concepts without condensing the concepts it is based of into terms. As a Biochemist it is done for exactly the same reasons in science. For example chemical reaction mechanisms can be complicated but we just name them after their discoverer so rather than having to explain all of the individual steps I can just say it is a Pictet-Spengler Reaction and move on to what I actually want to talk about.
Great video, like always!
Two additions to your story from someone that studied the book for a thesis:
There is actually a second volume of the book that was published in 1922. Spengler wasn't as pessimistic in the first volume (which was published during the war), but this all changed with the second volume. In short, he stated that total war was the only way to conclude the rivalry between the only two remaining variations of Western civilization that still existed: the German and Anglo-saxon.
Moreover, the distinction between culture and civilization doesn't come out of nowhere. In this time period, there was actually a huge debate between German intellectuals on the different concepts of culture and civilization, which started with Kant. Read the German Wikipedia on civilization for this.
You should see Europa Universalis 4 when it first came out 2013, before all the updates and DLC’s, Africa was just as bare and empty there as it was in Victoria 2.
I know the center of Africa was made up of several wastelands that were fairly large, but from what I remember, and am seeing looking it up, there was at least a few countries in West Africa. Most notable among the absence, to me, is always any remnant of a post Malinean state or Jolof rump states. They were more than just villages and all.
@@RosencreutzzzI just like to remember how far Eu4 has changed over the years and how different the map was from the start with Africa being one of them. North and South America were especially weird too in 2013, there were only 3 Native American tribes that were just blobed next to each other, same with Meso-America, and Inca was there all alone in South America.
@@brandonlyon730 EU4 still has a problem with Native Americans tbh. There are a lot of major state level tribes that are at least acknowledged as provinces with significant populations and some with cultures but they aren't actually in the game for some reason. Most notable being the Tainos, they have a lot of provinces with their culture in game and historically had multiple states and there are events you can get that deal with them but the entire Caribbean and Florida are just empty.
@@hyperion3145 It was kind of necessary with the way colonization works in EU4. It would be hard to add in all the tribes without filling the map making picking the colonization idea groups pointless when theirs barely any land to colonize with a colonist. Similar with Victoria 2 with 80% Africa being empty for the sake of getting the way colonization works to properly set up the African Scrabble. Hopefully it eventually changes in EU5 where they overhaul the colonization system.
@@brandonlyon730 yeah I was disappointed they didn't overhaul colonisation in leviathan. As they kept adding more and more natives to the new world then needed to nerf colonisation or at least conquest. The fact they still haven't fixed Europeans conquering tribal land not colonising into it really annoys me as it is such a simple fix.
Too be fair, it's a Swedish company that's come a long ways since its first gen of games like UA I, HoI I, Vic I, and CC I... in Vic II vanilla I remember Americans complaining about how they didn't do the American Civil War "right" so they went back and did "A House Divided" DLC. Now, if we saw a game made in Japan that was still Eurocentric... That's be weird... But a Swedish game from smaller beginnings- I cut them some slack. They are improving as they grow in popularity and it's cool to see them evolve.
What a phenomenal video, you've done tremendously well and I look forward to more videos in the future!!
As an eurocentric person, I can say I definitely don't include the US in it
Europe's only relevant because of USA
Yeah, because the US has surpassed Europe.
@@shorewall Thank God for that 🙏
The less famous my country is the less people will come to disturb it
5:51 why isn’t Ethiopia Portugal maya Vietnam Babylon gran Colombia Byzantium and kublai khan here?
It was an older map, before the season pass thing, which I also do not own, so it entirely skipped my mind, good catch.
took me an hour to digest this video, great work man
What happened in the 8th nintendo direct?
Well then, this started well, before becoming mind numbingly devastatingly BORING.
I lasted 14 minutes
The Berlin conference wasn’t about partitioning Africa but it was to setup rules for colonization
I'm interested in seeing what they do for Victoria 3, because eu4 did do quite a bit for non European nations being powerful. It leans to the European side after thr 1700s though like it did in reality, but they did try, and it is still fun and interesting to play with an American tribe, or an African nation or a rising Asian power. I'm hoping they fill out the map as it should be based on the reality of the situation in the next game, we'll see by the end of the month what the base game is and what they'll leave for dlc.
I appreciate the thorough exploration of this topic through more contemporary philosophy of the day, and how that can be reflected in some of what we do now. Like you said, yeah, it’s not like Spengler inspired our thinking of colonialism or post colonialism, but it’s fascinating to compare our modern concepts of the topic to what a philosopher was already thinking, despite all of his own pitfalls. I’m subscribing, it’s good stuff.
P.S.- I’m assuming by the end of history you mean Fukuyama’s assessment of liberal democracy as the end-all for civilization and its conflicts? Looking forward to watching a video on that!
Great video Great work 👌
5:52, No, that isn't a problem. History wasn't equal, and people should just deal with it. Relevant figures should get their spot in games, regardless of geographical location.
relevant figures are and were everywhere
Relevant to whom? You think nothing was going on outside Europe at the time all those Civ leaders were alive? For most of history, Europe hasn't been especially relevant - the Indian Ocean is where the good stuff happened
It'd make sense if he wanted places like Asia to be better represented, etc. But Africa? Most of Sub-Saharan Africa didn't even have written language or wheels, those were hunter-gatherers who didn't even record their own history, they had no business ever rivaling the Europeans at the time, if they were weak in game it'd be historically accurate.
@@nerdsoft9964
>For most of history, Europe hasn't been especially relevant.
Perhaps, but during this time period europe was the most important area by far. The industrial revolution and the golden age of scientific discovery. The modern world was created by europe during this time period and the non-european nations for the most part were at the whim of European empires.
@@incognito-px3dz Yeah, but the timestamp above is specifically complaining about Civ, saying that a game which tries to portray civilisations from all across world history shouldn't have such a high ratio of European/Western civs compared to everyone else. At present, I think Civ VI is slightly under 50/50 Western/everyone else, with fewer Western civs depending on where exactly you draw the line from Western to non-western.
Excellent Video, keep up the good work
Very nice video, what is the map that you are using in the background ?
I've never noticed because literally everyone plays HPM
You forget that most of recent world history was Euro centric (Around the last 500 years).
NOOO WE WUZ KANGZ'N'SHIEET
@@EkoFranko Is that some kind of racist comment?
@@darkdragon5520 it can't be racist i am from russia aka northern Nigeria.
@@EkoFranko ❓❓❓❓what?
@@darkdragon5520 Do you not understand what a joke is?
You really thought we wouldn't notice the AOE music :)
Great vid thanks!
Comparing EU4 a later game as well as something which has been supported way more dlc and update wise to VIC2 and asking: why less nations; seems kind of funny especially seeing the natives update for NA in EU4. I wouldn't be surprised dlc was planned for Africa if support was greater than it was at the time.
The spenglarian paradox
Either he is right with his overview or he is right because populations only intepret things through their own manifestations
the second option is the more likely.
to look at history you need to have a lens to look at it and that lens can only look so broadly because of regional and cultural limitations.
like for example, im brazilian and we pass trough eurasian history quite fast mainly because of the second wave of immigrants that came by the end of the 19th century before diving deep into south america history but still really focused on the happenings of brazil with events around the hispanic america being mainly big side notes.
to be able to look at history as it probably actualy was you need multiple lenses from multiple cultures.
Yeah for example in the video he contrasts a eurocentric lens vs a realistic when it loads the term for a "more correct"
Youd spend more time defining terms then to actually make any sense for example dark africans wouldnt be classed as a geopolitical states at all
Basically he is using a eurocentric lens to view a non eurocentric lens to view a eurocentric lens to view a non eurocentric lens
@@knownothing3364 "Youd spend more time defining terms then to actually make any sense for example dark africans wouldnt be classed as a geopolitical states at all" What does this section mean exactly? Sokoto were geopolitical state
@@vercot7000 i forgot the great sokoto how could i
Sokoto is known historically for bring peace stability and freedom to their new empire with vast colonies stretching from china to america and great social innovations such as common law and consitutionalosm
@@knownothing3364 My point was that they were a regional superpower...which is...by definition a geopolitical power lmao
Good video, although I couldn't really grasp a single, straightforward conclusion from what you discussed. Perhaps this reflects Spengler's work the best given your depiction.
As an EU4 player, these are my thoughts based on what the video shared. I love how Paradox is moving towards simulating historical "forces" that shaped our real-world history. These forces do not make anything "inevitable" persay, but they represent the various benefits and drawbacks that weight history in certain directions. You as the player are dropped into this environment, and you must take advantage of the benefits that your political entity, ruler, or nation has in the fight against others, who have their own advantages (which may be greater than yours).
By populating the rest of the world with their own peoples, structures, technology, geography, and political situations, Paradox is doing a better job of simulating these forces. When a land is empty, there is no entity to represent the situation of people from that region. It's just passive, like a piece of wood with no will of its own. Even in the era of European colonization and imperialism, nothing passive like this existed. For example, the Spaniards didn't take down the Aztecs by just being "awesome Europeans" or showing up and impressing the natives into submission; they had numerous definable advantages (technology, regional novelty, group organization, etc.). The Aztecs also had their own advantages, like having the home turf and a far more numerous fighting force. The Aztecs lost in part because the Conquistadors took advantage of the Aztec's unpopularity and political frailty. This was not inevitable: the conquistadors could have been wiped out if the Aztecs had managed to break up the coalition or isolate and ambush the conquistadors. However, this is not how that played out. With more detail, there arises more ways to win and more ways to fail.
The rest of Europe's imperialist projects follow this pattern. Europeans consistently took advantage of local situations. Yes, sometimes they didn't need to because their advantages weighted it so far in their favor, but it never went to the point of "inevitability." This is true of every political and social entity from around the world. I like it when instead of barring a "primitive" nation from doing something, there is instead a game mechanic rooted in history that makes it difficult, sometimes really difficult, but still possible to do it. I like it when each region has their own social and political climate defined and given agency. It gives respect and awareness to the people that lived/live there while making it more interesting to play, either as a colonizer, native, trader, conqueror, or something else.
I suppose you can differentiate what I said from Spengler's ideas in this way: I talked mainly about external forces, whereas he was concerned with internal forces (at least that's how I perceived the portrayal in this video). However, both internal and external forces in this sense are not exclusive to one people, nation, or race. If I'm wrong in this assessment, I'd like to hear someone else's thoughts who knows much more about the subject than I do.
if we analise mircea elliade we can understand that every culture tends to promote some sort of projection of where the center of the world is, for china and its neighboring countries china was the middle of the world, or for christianity jerusalem was the middle, in the age of discovery: europe, for the mayans and astecs they lived in the middle of the world, we can also perceive it in religious doctrines such as buddhism (we exist in a realm betwenn the gods and the lower levels of existence) or the north pagans (midgard). So it is important to understand that since we(west societies and countries) exist as extension to european adventures across the world our point of view, our center of the world, will not be china, will not be benin or the andes peaks. it would be interesting to see these non "central" countries have a rethoric about the europeans as barbarians (such as the example of japanese folks perceiving the barbarians of the south/europeans)
another interesting read is Carl Schimidt (tho he is quite polemic) in his book the nomos of the earth he explore the transition of european concept of law and state toward the land and sea throughout history. for example: one thing he mentions is the christian myth of the kathekon on which legitimized, on early medieval europe, the existence of christian states and denied legitimacy to any non christian states.
these ideas can light how society, culture, etc. sees itself as the center of legitimacy, for example: of course the americas were discovered, they exist as extension to european exploration and not native american states, the discovery of america for the european world/west does not deny war, oppression, conquest, etc. but we must differentiate what the perceiving of phenoumena and phenoumena is: the expansion of european influence exists paralel to native population perceptions. the discovery of america or the partition of africa does not deny these native populations of their personal interpretations.
In the end, it would be nice to see a african country organizing itself and going for its own colonial conquest in europe or in the americas, Or some native uprising on USA, or some culture from spain, for example, overtaking its cultural masters and imposing itself, imagie if england was conquered by the irish; this is what make paradox games cool, the possibilities of something different, the rise of an unexpected power, the fall of a might goverment. Vic 3 has a lot of potential and i believe paradox will deliver.
What are your personal thoughts on Spengler's philosophy of history?
Honestly, even if I agreed with his broader philosophies, which I do not, his position of a world of pure and fatalistic inevitability really doesn’t click with his admiration of Nietzsche and Nietzsche’s whole idea of individuals and will. No matter what endpoint ideology you replace Spengler’s with, his model still seems terribly limited and myopic.
As seen with Glubb and his “classical conservatism” and as we’ll see with the next video, anyone trying to tell you they have a formula for predicting history is just waiting to be proven wrong with their fingers in their ears or somewhere else.
@@Rosencreutzzz So far Spengler's system seems to be accurate with regard to our time. A lot of the predictions he made for the year 2000 like the end of form-development in architecture and art in general as well as the domination of money politics were seemingly fulfilled. We still have a few major events and movements awaiting us in the "near" future (e.g. the emergence of Caesarim around the middle of the 21st century), so I guess it remains for us to see whether he was right about that part of our future.
When you talk of an end of form-development in all of art you just dismiss the development currently ongoing. Think about the rapid development of digital art and all the tools it necessitates alone, or the massive variety of electronic music styles.
You can dislike all of that and that's perfectly fine, but simply dismissing it when looking for modern day development in the arts is just counterproductive.
Even something as established and driven by profit and target demographics as the American film industry can occasionally turn out something fresh/different (e.g. Into the Spiderverse).
Sex toys take all kinds of weird and creative forms and colors nowadays. And yes this constitutes as art as well.
Every year a couple of innovative and fun new board games are released.
...
@@LPVince94 Well, I don't think that would exactly count as form-development in Spengler's system. I take "form" to mean something like a period or movement in art, e.g. Gothic or Rococo. And sure, there's technically still plenty of painting and music done today, but that doesn't disprove Spengler's point. He himself said that around our time there will be "Menaingless; empty, artificial architecture and ornament" along with "Imitation of archaic and exotic motives" which I interpret it as saying that artists in our time will seek to mimick old or foreign styles instead of creating something new on the same scale. Likewise, I don't think toys and board gamea can be counted as art. I think a more appropriate term for such objects would be "handicraft".
@@Rosencreutzzz Sorry, but i didn't see anything concrete in your opinion. Why is Spengler wrong? Whole his method work genuielly well with ALL of cultures, which he states. It can't be just a coincidence. Prove me wrong
I strongly believe you overstated the importance of his work and forgot to mention his extreme bias and hate towards Jews in said book. It was a well made video but this really felt like a way to talk about Spangler in a more positive light wrapped around Victoria 3 like Spangler was the only human on earth with ideas of western decline at the time. You’re talking about how he is presenting a new idea ? Yet he talks heavily about Jews being the reason for declining civilizations throughout time and that feeling was not a new idea in his time, definitely an odd choice to choice to use for this video and that’s why I say it was forced because the the book had such an influence on the Nazi party rather than modern historians.
did you finish the video
Saw this on my reddit and initially was like "oh cool a video about Victoria 2 & 3 comparisons" but this was so much better than I expected: a serious analysis of the History in history games?? plus one of those early 20th century historian/philosopher dudes with a huge ego??? nice vid
You got yourself a subscriber from this one single video. It was amazing.
I know this video is older by now. but I must saythe best definition I've heard, and the one I personally usually use for "The West" is Any nation which has emerged out of the ruins and/or legacy of the Western Roman Empire."
This would allow a definition to include all countries normally considered Western, while also segregating Eastern Europe from the colonial powers (as they are born or influenced primarily by the byzantine legacy) while Also-also allowing the further inclusion of Germany and the nordic and celtic nations. while they never formally were under Roman rule, they would eventually fall under that definition with their conversion to catholicism .
also allows all colonial nations like Australia and New Zeeland to be Western despite being geographically east.
I think that "Christianity", especially catholics and those who separate from it (protestants) is more in line with what is "The West". Orthodox are different civilisation.
Doesn't seem to be a good qualifier for northern Europe
@@bxzidffbxzidff yes it is. Since Catholicism, which itself is a legacy of Rome brings the Germanic world into the West
This is very high quality content. Hope to see more in the future.
Great work, really appreciate it!
Glad to hear it. Makes me believe more in this little project.
"Don't worry if it doesn't quite make sense yet, it never will" I'm fucking dying
8:49 in the eight nintendo direct?
Well I guess their problem is that they use a map as the core of their game - not a board or a landscape. The map is itself a technology that privileges the structure of modern European polities, nation states above others. For example, they do a bad job in displaying feudal organizations of medieval society. It kinda presupposes a nation state with clear borders.
How would you envision a game suvh as this? I am curious as to how a paradox game can be envisioned as a board or a landscape.
@@riverman6462 I am not a game designer so I have no clue - neither do historians as it seems, because they use political maps time and again. So I am at a loss.
The game Hegomony III: Clash of the ancients is what I meant by landscape. It had it where the game came down to the control of single production sites - lumber mills and the like. But that is a completely different genre. I guess that before the centralized state developed matters of politics were more botto-up then they are in most paradox games - think John Lackland and the magna carta. When I said board I meant games like Civilization.
Its rather well conceptualized in CKIII, with its legal and personal connections amongst the rulers. Althought I would wish for more dynamic de jure titles and a system which brings in the role of the church in such legal-political matters.
@@FlosBlog I totally agree with you. I would also add that a system where Cities Skylines and Civilization series, and possibly Ck3 can crossover kind of, and create this banger of a game that simulates politics, economy, trade and culture from the micro level to the macro level. This game could revolutionize this genre forever. Think like a society simulator basically.
I know this is a fantasy and cannot be really done without deep frying every computer, but still it's an interesting idea that I want to see created.
@@riverman6462 Hasnt there been a city builder game where you have to get along with the city coucil made by kalypso? Maybe you can give that a look?
@@FlosBlog I don't know any such game. Can you tell me the name?
Honestly I don't see a problem with eurocentrism in the west, it reflects the civilizational behaviour of the west. It talks about how European civilization expand to the world. In Eastern countries like China, they also have a separate Chinese history as a distinct subject from world history. The way they teach Chinese history also reflect its civilization Characteristic, as Chinese history are seen as very distinct from world history. Enthasising the isolationist nature of the Chinese civilization.
Europe conquered Africa in a moment and now we talk how eurocentric our views are I mean that happened.
@@michadomeracki5910 This is part of the American globalists agenda. They are playing this diversity and inclusion shit to make step in establishing a one world government. Because if every other culture are presented to be included in the American culture, people of other culture will accept American subjugation. Only if Europe put European culture first and don't try to include every other culture as part of European culture. We can have a multipolar democratic world order.
@@NovajaPravda I have seen the word Nazbol before, what does the word nazbol mean?
@@michadomeracki5910 National Bolsheviks, you probably seen it from Jreg
@@NovajaPravda Okey thanks. We have some political problems in gaming, nothing is normal anymore.
Nice nuanced video! I enjoy the paradox history games but some of the time it feels like the player base are people who just want to uncensor hitler or are completely uninterested in these types of convos and just want to paint the map as SPQR. Thank you very much.
Hey, off topic but your Twitter bio says DM for suggestions but your DMs aren't open
Good catch, fixed it.
Why so many dislikes? Spengler fans?
Probably, yeah. Spengler is to reactionaryism what Immanuel Kant is to liberalism, you can't really critique either of them without also critiquing the primary ideologies that has been inspired by them tbh. So of course it's going to piss of reactionary thinkers.
I kind of liked the old map better in some ways. I agree that is was generally way too empty with a lot of the real countries, but a lot of the inner area didn’t really have “states” did they?
In the dev diary for decentralized nations they go into their logic a bit and while I do think it is a little inconsistent or gives way to gameplay (which is fine at times) there are nations that are rump states for the Mali/Songhai/Gao states and they definitely had a formal government. What constitute a state isn’t set in stone and it’s not like West Africa entered a period of pure anarchy or whatever. There were successor states to the empires, sometimes large and cohesive theocracies that were on par with Sokoto, which is modeled on the vic 2 map, so I don’t really know what the deciding factor is supposed to be.
I've played HFM in Vic2 and other mods so much I forgot how empty Africa is in the base game lol
this channel is a perfect mix of everything i like.
Idk bro I just wanna eradicate Paraguay from the map so I hope they have mechanics that allow for "historical occupation"
Isn't historical occupation a Conquest of territory? Argentina on VIC2 could theoretically annex Paraguay and thus the latter would be erased from the world map. Also why the want to eradicate Paraguay?
the solution is simple: make another wargoal exclusive for great and secondary powers against non-westernized nations: colonize, with no infamy costs unless another great or secondary power is ot gets involved
That exists in HPM mod
I hope it’s a little less confusing than Vic2
Excellent video - you earned yourself a new sub! 👍
So you are shocked that a game about European colonisation is Eurocentric?
No. It might sound a bit semantic but the game isn't about European colonization, strictly speaking. It's about a time the years 1836-1936, and as such attempts to model those years holistically, so as to both properly display European dominance of the time period and the people who existed in the "rest of the world." There's always a time and place for eurocentric lenses, just as there's times where it makes sense to discuss the world through the Roman lens when talking about the classical era, even though most all historians would prefer to be able to shine a light on celtic society as well and learn that perspective.
@@Rosencreutzzz I just don't get the point of African Nations. 1. of all they are all gonna get partioned anyway, so why even put them into the game since partiotening them is not gonna be very difficult because of the technology difference, and will almost certainly be not more difficult than just colonizing something, and 2. of all no player is gonna ever play these Nations since as I already said they are just going to get annexed. It just seems useless to add these Nations. Also complaining that a game about the 19th century is western centric and doesn't include some random African Nation that isn't going to do anything important in world history, ist just stupid.
@@ShiftySheriff2 I genuinely don't see a problem with making a system that more accurately represents reality in a game about history. To my understanding the decentralized states aren't even playable (yet, given certain...dlc practices), and realistically, playing them wouldn't make much sense anyway, given we as players are embodied by the centralized authority of the State. It's no more useless to add representations of people who historically existed to a map than it is to correct poorly assigned models for tanks or whatever in HoI. Fuller and better depictions of real world history, especially ones like this that might get people to actually be interested in or provide a starting point for learning actual history should always be applauded.
Beyond that, from just a gameplay perspective alone, they're adding an element here, fleshing out a mechanic, and unless they do it in a way that genuinely harms gameplay or becomes deeply tedious or somehow sucks up an appreciable amount of dev time, there's not much reason I can see for calling it pointless or useless. It's better history and more interesting gameplay.
Also, I do not know if this was referring to my video or some conversation had elsewhere or a strawman, but I'm not complaining. At the least, one of my points is exactly that there's some good reasons to present western-centric models for certain periods of history, but there's got to be some attention given to when that model means losing important elements from actual history.
@@Rosencreutzzz The thing is they are represented in Victoria 2. If you take a look at the cultures mapmode, you can see all the different cultures around africa. And yes they are adding a mechanic, but I am worried that the mechanic is gonna make it annoying to colonize africa and that it gives these Nations a chance to rise to a worldpower, which historically didn't happen and wasn't possible. Also it is historical how it is in Victoria 2. Yes you don't see the countries on the map, but that is because they didn't have a state structure like the europeans, they may have had a chief or a king, but they had no real impact on the europeans, on which the game pretty much concentrates. These "states" might as well have not even existed and it wouldn't have made a difference in history. But tbh I don't even care what they do with the game or how they plan to fuck it up, since that already happened with the new army mechanic, so i'm not even gonna bother to play it.
@@ShiftySheriff2 ... so you don't care about the game, but give enough of a F you don't want to see African countries properly represented. LOL.
1:00 the reason it is empty is because Europe is where new and casual players want to play
Also less tags the better it runs
Congrats on being the top video for victoria 3
Hey, i like this video a lot.
The background music choice is good, the visuals, used sparingly, are actually pretty well timed and good.
This presents a good point of view that i find interesting. Even if i disagree eith points or think you should of expanded more, i can still respect the scope and ideas you presented.
Watching this reminds me of a chapter from the book "King Leopolds Ghost" with ostensibly a focus on the congo but expands to things like French Algeria and British South Africa and the colonialist mindset.
If youve read this far, yes i would recommend the book to anyone its stellar.
What's the first background song?
The one thats around 0:10 to around 1:30? Its Paradox's own song called "buckingham palace"
is the editing in this intentionally bad?
Yeah it's called postmodern neo marxism get with it
@@Rosencreutzzz oh should have payed more attention in philosophy
Me: "Hmm, I am skeptical..."
Me when the Age of Empire 2 soundtrack drops: "This man makes a compelling argument!"
Really enjoying these videos on how we talk about history, I like this topic more than history itself. I'm a mathematics grad student (and don't play these games) so a lot of the stuff on this channel is new to me, so when the name Oswald Spengler came up I was very surprised - I've heard this name before! And given what his work is like, it's something I "shouldn't" know about, but perhaps this shows how far reaching his influence is.
I have a document where I save funny/interesting math-related quotes, so it wasn't hard to locate where I'd heard of Spengler. Behold:
"For Greek Mathematics, magnitudes were geometric rather than arithmetic; western Mathematics has reversed this emphasis. Oswald Spengler, in his book The Decline of the West, has argued that this means that there are two wholly different "Mathematics", as part of two different cultures. Our position is rather that congruence and geometric ratios on the one hand and Dedekind cuts on the other are just two different careful formalizations of the SAME underlying idea of magnitude - and that this point exemplifies the unity of idea behind the inevitably varied form."
- Saunders Mac Lane. Mathematics, From and Function
(The idea that ancient Greek math is very different from modern math is a very easy sell. But this idea of two wholly different math kinda ignores the fact that one transformed into the other through a long history. It's not as though modern math had an independent, unrelated birth. Also, I don't know why the modern math of eg Dedekind should be be called "western". Is ancient Greece not a part of the West?)
Interesting to see him come up there, of all places.
Yeah, he as a reaching influence that even touches literary figures like Joseph Campbell, and very indirectly Margaret Atwood, often through intermediary figures. Making my video on esoterics was the first time I learned that he had a...fraught dialogue with Rudolf Steiner. He pops up in a lot of spots, it would seem.
This channel, is...wow. Interesting work man :)
antique colonialism > early modern colonialism
I went in expecting a Victoria 3 video about map changes, and got a nuanced take on how history is framed by gameplay, and gameplay mechanics. I dig this. lol
Why is South America seen as different to North America in terms of being a colonised nation?
If I had to narrow it down to two main elements, it would be the realities of global power and neocolonialism as the first one-- that Central and South America have largely been sites of resource extraction (the fact that they've had to nationalize their industries in many cases is a sign of this) with lessened autonomy than the United States, as an example.
The second is race and the complicated way that Hispanic both is and isn't a race, and is sometimes part of whiteness(like in US census forms) and sometimes distinct from it (like in US Census forms), and how that ultimately results in not including the more "mixed race" settler states in typical definitions of the West. Indeed, most any definition of "the West" has some contradiction or strong exception to its rules that makes it rather imprecise.
Put those together and it's largely an issue of power relations.
Nice Derrida reference. Fit in a Hauntological joke in a future video sometime next