Let us get back on topic shall we?
What we need more of is culture. Deltaria for example, is shit now. It's barely kept to it's once proud heritage.
Farsun wrote:Let us get back on topic shall we?
What we need more of is culture. Deltaria for example, is shit now. It's barely kept to it's once proud heritage.
Afrocentric wrote:Would you rather play in a 3rd world country, with an established/diverse culture or a 1st world country that lacks a culture and diversity? I'm willing to bet most people will pick the later.
Afrocentric wrote:Would you rather play in a 3rd world country, with an established/diverse culture or a 1st world country that lacks a culture and diversity? I'm willing to bet most people will pick the later.
Aquinas wrote:For example, if I role-played a big government socialist party, I might in theory want to vote for high levels of overseas aid, free national healthcare, a national education system,a generous welfare state and so on, but in role-play terms this might be impractical for an impoverished nation with no money that is struggling to cope with the latest famine.
Finally!Farsun wrote:Let us get back on topic shall we?
Yes, like the Tukarese Democratic Union in Tukarali. I was there and they wanted to give foreign aid. Tukarali is a starving hole, for Christ's sake!Aquinas wrote:I might in theory want to vote for high levels of overseas aid, free national healthcare, a national education system,a generous welfare state and so on, but in role-play terms this might be impractical for an impoverished nation with no money that is struggling to cope with the latest famine.
Chances are because it was developed by a person from a first-world country, and because most players are from the first world.Aquinas wrote:Secondly, it seems to me that many of the legislative options available in Particracy are skewed towards first world rather than third world countries.
EEL123 wrote:Those are the legal traditions. The Roman Empire increasingly delegated power - especially military power - to 'barbarian' rulers. If that is not decentralisation, what is?Amazeroth wrote:Rather like China, the structures the Roman Empire had did survive anyway - in the west, of course - if you look at the law systems of Langobards and Visigoths opposed to those of the northern Germanic nations, you can easily see that.
I think you see these ethnic divisions as too simplified. There is very little in common nowadays between an Egyptian and a Spaniard and a Hungarian. The Celts were genetically similar, but culturally not so.Amazeroth wrote:Gauls and Britons and Iberians (the non-phoenician ones) and part of the Italians were Celtic - a very close culture. Egyptians were hellenised, along with most of the eastern part, which would have been a cultural unification point as well. Sure, the same thing can't be said for Jews, some of the few German tribes that actually were part of the Roman Empire, or the Scythians, and some other nations, but most were either related like the Celts, or had "come up" under the same cultural ideals due to them being Greek colonies from the start, or conquered by Alexander the Great and subsequently hellenised (like Egypt).
Not really. The barbarians had none of the centralised bureaucracy of the Roman Empire. They operated on a social and political order hovering between a state and a tribe.Amazeroth wrote:That's not only legal traditions, they used all the bureaucratic structures as well, as well as much of the original organisational structures.
In a feudal system, the lesser lords were entities in their own right. These governors and generals were supposed to be extensions of the chief ruler's authority. And anyway, the fact that he got to delegate power to individuals and rescind this delegation, as opposed to almost irreversibly handing it over to a certain person and letting his descendants inherit power, shows the centralised power of the Roman and Chinese governments.Amazeroth wrote:And generally, any power the emperor delegates is a bit of decentralisation, regardless whether he transfers them to Romans or non-Romans. Although probably even the Chinese emperor had generals, and didn't lead the army into war all by himself. And I'm guessing that there were some offices like governors in China as well.
If you look at a modern map, the Roman Empire would have encompassed eight languages groups. The Mongolian Empire encompasses five.Amazeroth wrote:There is a huge lot in common nowadays between Spaniards and Hungarians etc. etc. etc.
EEL123 wrote:Damnit, off topic again.Not really. The barbarians had none of the centralised bureaucracy of the Roman Empire. They operated on a social and political order hovering between a state and a tribe.Amazeroth wrote:That's not only legal traditions, they used all the bureaucratic structures as well, as well as much of the original organisational structures.
In a feudal system, the lesser lords were entities in their own right. These governors and generals were supposed to be extensions of the chief ruler's authority. And anyway, the fact that he got to delegate power to individuals and rescind this delegation, as opposed to almost irreversibly handing it over to a certain person and letting his descendants inherit power, shows the centralised power of the Roman and Chinese governments.[/quote] Sure, but I wouldn't debate that Romans and Chinese were decentralised. What happened in Western Rome however was not the Emperor willfully giving out inheritable titles. It was the failing of a centralised system that lacked the necessary amount of power to keep a centralised form of organisation, that lacked the necessary amount of power needed to not create inheritable titles. I do confess however, that I have no idea what I was originally debating about with this strand of the discussion.Amazeroth wrote:And generally, any power the emperor delegates is a bit of decentralisation, regardless whether he transfers them to Romans or non-Romans. Although probably even the Chinese emperor had generals, and didn't lead the army into war all by himself. And I'm guessing that there were some offices like governors in China as well.
If you look at a modern map, the Roman Empire would have encompassed eight languages groups. The Mongolian Empire encompasses five.Amazeroth wrote:There is a huge lot in common nowadays between Spaniards and Hungarians etc. etc. etc.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests