To be fair, that conclusion is not outside the history mainstream, G. Parker *The Military Revolution* (1996) and W. McNeill *The Pursuit of Power* (1982) both suggest European military competition drove these processes. 21/xx
Näytä tämä ketju
-
Successful trade policy redirects the trade flows back towards the home port of your country, thereby gaining that revenue and denying it to others. For you to get rich in trade, others must get poor. 30/46
Näytä tämä ketju
I should note that the trade network is one part of the game that remains solidly Eurocentric; trade moves in a predicable direction and while it can be diverted this way or that in small ways, trade lanes begin in the Americas or Asia and end in Europe. 31/46
-
-
Consequently, building a trade empire from places that aren't Europe is usually impossible, restricting non-European states to large territorial empires (generally you either run a small state on trade or a big state on land taxes in the game). 32/46
Näytä tämä ketju -
All of that said, EU4 still does have some interesting bits of historical lessons. As noted, the map is fairly scrupulous and EU4 players are more likely to know where Prussia (or Mali, etc) is from playing. 33/46
Näytä tämä ketju -
As a 'Realist Political Dynamics Simulator' it is almost peerless. The value of that depends on how accurately you think Neorealism describes international systems. I think it is a useful lens, which lends EU4 some value in presenting that. 34/46
Näytä tämä ketju -
Historical events are trickier. The game is free-form, so events after the start date will not unfold in perfect historical order, though some major events (Printing Press, Reformation, etc) are encouraged by game mechanics to happen around the right time. 35/46
Näytä tämä ketju -
The big issue is the degree to which, without serious player intervention, European dominance by 1800 is inevitable. Now of course European colonial empires did happen, so it seems odd to fault the game for regularly producing historical outcomes... 36/46
Näytä tämä ketju -
...but the degree to which those outcomes are presented as mechanistic and inevitable, rather than contingent is troublesome and may lead some careless players down a fairly dark path of historical thinking. 37/46
Näytä tämä ketju -
The game is great for stimulating informative 'wiki-walks' as players want to find out what the heck the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was, or what Maurician Infantry is, or investigate the printing press. In that sense, the historical rootedness has real value. 38/46
Näytä tämä ketju -
For the teacher working with students whose history is heavily informed by EU4 (and other paradox games - they have Crusader Kings 3 for the Middle Ages, Imperator for the ancient period, Victoria II for industrial revolution and Hearts of Iron for WWII)...39/46
Näytä tämä ketju -
...you are likely to want to try to foreground the human impacts of those state-centered policies (because they game doesn't) - present students with what it means*for*people* that France is grabbing islands to plant sugar in order to raise revenue to fight England...40/46
Näytä tämä ketju -
...(mostly misery, in the event) and what it means that state-on-state competition in the premodern and early modern world more or less everywhere led to frequent warfare (mostly misery, in the event). 41/46
Näytä tämä ketju -
And second, you are likely going to want to spend more time and effort stressing the contingency of the 'rise of Europe' in the early modern period, noting how this outcome wasn't necessarily inevitable or desirable. 42/46
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.