Victoria 3 and the Decline of the West

[@Rosencreutzzz]

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).

[@Tony_Cardoza]

Nice website dude

[@fanetv390]

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.

[@mateuszchrapek3828]

they are planing to make the decentralized nations playable, that was in one of the first diares

[@wolraadwoltemade3275]

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.

[@Marcus1Arelius3]

“Try to limit the player from committing direct atrocities at times, at least.” Stellaris: 👀

[@AttaBek1422]

The Naavi aren’t real so they can’t cancel you on Twitter

[@Skiddla]

@@hiagocaesar9311 i wana be the first person to meet space aliens ..... and fuck

[@Artosk]

You have to be human for human rights to apply

[@JUAN_OLIVIER]

What atrocities can one commit in Victoria 2?

[@9justify]

@@JUAN_OLIVIER victoria 2 did nothing wrong

[@Lucas_Antar]

Don’t worry about playing the decentralized nations they’re just saving that for a paid DLC of course.

[@plusxz821]

NOT ONLY 2 DLCS 80 DLCS

[@BlueHawkPictures17]

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.

[@twojstarypijany3182]

And their mechanics will be added to base game after 4 years after launch of the dlc

[@Lucas_Antar]

@@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 😂😂

[@thepickle5214]

@Danny L no that's realistic

[@Akwardave]

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.

[@callmefox630]

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!

[@wollebay]

This is quite the interesting view on paradox games and what you can learn from them.+

[@null8036]

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)

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

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.

[@donbenjamin6459]

Great point of view also good writing

[@cosmicdragon1907]

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.

[@Rosencreutzzz]

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.

[@somethingelse516]

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.

[@durianjaykin3576]

@@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

[@somethingelse516]

@@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

[@hippocleides7105]

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.

[@m136dalie]

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.

[@LaFonteCheVi]

It's almost like the creator of this video doesn't understand mercantilism or how economies in this period worked.

[@SketchyHippopotamus]

But does it make you actually question that mentality? Or just reinforce it’s assumptions

[@m136dalie]

@@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.

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

@@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.

[@mattjk5299]

@@SketchyHippopotamus Which assumptions would you say are presented by Victoria III?

[@tommyrea]

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

[@chriseffpunkt4333]

Vanilla Empire Total War hahaha

[@MrBell-iq3sm]

Enemy AI's naval attacks often times resulted in shifting the balance of war into my favour.

[@freethinker8603]

Africa was "empty" as in sparsely populated back then. The population boom you see now wouldnt be possible without European medicine and technology

[@Figgy_Tree]

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.

[@freethinker8603]

@@Figgy_Tree thats like the Russian military

[@tkaine7983]

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

[@bgs2004]

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.

[@nooanykanen5864]

@@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.

[@Swenthorian]

In south Florida, we did Spanish colonization, and American history from the 1950s onward, lol.

[@tkaine7983]

@@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.

[@hyperion3145]

@@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.

[@turkepic3637]

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.

[@Jay_Johnson]

but EU4 is far less of a simulation game. especially since tinto took over.

[@auraguard0212]

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?

[@trevorwarfield8852]

​@@Jay_Johnson tinto stinky

[@thesenate5956]

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).

[@LaFonteCheVi]

Also, written African history is virtually non-existent outside of a handful of tribes and kingdoms.

[@TheAustralianMapper5378]

GFM is also great.

[@coatofarms4439]

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.

[@GelloWello]

@@coatofarms4439 tbf countries like Ethiopia, the North African states, and Boer Republics all historically fought off European conquest.

[@coatofarms4439]

@@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.

[@CivilizedWasteland]

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.

[@101jir]

"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.

[@mareksicinski3726]

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

[@clintharrisjr.6999]

Not being good enough to balance a game is not a reason to mis portray a whole continent.

[@siyacer]

@@clintharrisjr.6999 It is

[@gamerito100]

@@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

[@rzu1474]

Criticising Victoria for being Eurocentric... Kinda seems like criticism of hoi4 Being militaristic

[@Mightfox]

The video literally talks about how it isnt doing that.

[@michadomeracki5910]

The era of Europe conquering the whole world is eurocentric oh no, this channel is a joke.

[@siluda9255]

@@Mightfox surprise suprise people watch video and jump to conclusion

[@rzu1474]

@@siluda9255 I watched the video? Just a comment about how silly I thought the original premise is

[@gigachadgaming1551]

@Mightfox “this video isn’t trying to say that X is Y. Any way here’s all the reason X is Y…”

[@cstick2664]

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.

[@OhSanjiBoi]

Sokoto was pretty cool though.

[@Bread-nx9fo]

@@OhSanjiBoi yeah but in the period of Vicky 2, it just isn’t a relevant power anymore

[@OhSanjiBoi]

@@Bread-nx9fo No really true. It was pretty relevant power in West Africa even during it's final days.

[@hyperion3145]

@@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.

[@jones877]

@@hyperion3145 with all that relevance, it's still weaker than every other state in the world at the time

[@ambroisep.p8706]

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

[@BasicLib]

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.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

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.

[@catmonarchist8920]

@@BasicLib how did you stop it crashing?

[@ambroisep.p8706]

​@@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

[@BasicLib]

@@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.

[@EmisoraRadioPatio]

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.

[@mareksicinski3726]

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

[@wildfire9280]

@@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.

[@crazeelazee7524]

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?

[@MrBell-iq3sm]

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.

[@MrBell-iq3sm]

@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.

[@vaygo.forlorn]

@Lazy Sorcerer Generally speaking, more player option is better. First nations in EU4 are a good time, especially if you are seeking a challenge.

[@MrBell-iq3sm]

@Lazy Sorcerer The DLC policy?

[@vaygo.forlorn]

@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.

[@jek_si2251]

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.

[@jasonhaven7170]

Ethiopia won and wasn't colonised

[@MalletFace9898]

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.

[@leagueofdead569]

@@jasonhaven7170 Ethiopia was colonised by the Italians in 1936.

[@jasonhaven7170]

@@leagueofdead569 They were occupied during WW2, by your logic, France was colonised by Germany in 1941

[@ramiromen6595]

@@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

[@stylianstamatis8000]

Thank you so much for the subtitles! They're really helpful, and I appreciate the effort you put into them!

[@Rosencreutzzz]

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.

[@SafavidAfsharid3197]

@@Rosencreutzzz the map india is also wrong in vic2 and vic3. Like the nawab of arcot is missing and Nagur should be bigger

[@MrShadowThief]

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.

[@Fummy007]

So you are shocked that a game about European colonisation is Eurocentric?

[@Rosencreutzzz]

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.

[@ShiftySheriff2]

@@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.

[@Rosencreutzzz]

@@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.

[@ShiftySheriff2]

@@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.

[@furthestborealia1001]

@@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.

[@snippsnapp123]

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.

[@Jay_Johnson]

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'

[@Jay_Johnson]

@Crumbsly we'll see

[@snippsnapp123]

@@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.

[@frogking5573]

@@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.

[@Jay_Johnson]

@@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.

[@seaofscissors]

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!

[@siyacer]

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.

[@NovajaPravda]

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.

[@michadomeracki5910]

Europe conquered Africa in a moment and now we talk how eurocentric our views are I mean that happened.

[@NovajaPravda]

@@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.

[@michadomeracki5910]

@@NovajaPravda I have seen the word Nazbol before, what does the word nazbol mean?

[@NovajaPravda]

@@michadomeracki5910 National Bolsheviks, you probably seen it from Jreg

[@michadomeracki5910]

@@NovajaPravda Okey thanks. We have some political problems in gaming, nothing is normal anymore.

[@CraftsmanOfAwsomenes]

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.

[@henriquepacheco7473]

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.

[@anakinthemannequin69]

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.

[@spectre7223]

look. they wuz not kangz.

[@Carl_ATHF]

Ooga booga now let me eat yo brainz cuh

[@scygnius]

I’d have to say I really do think you miss the point of Vicky2. It’s the Victorian Era from the European perspective. Not adding detail to Africa was kinda the point. The game is best experienced through a western power, which in turn viewed all of Africa as one big empty land-grab. Giving Africa plenty of playable states may of course be fun for gameplay, but does begin to feel rather silly in the 1800s’ historical context. The reason Africans weren’t invited to the Scramble for Africa is because they were not respectable from a military perspective. Our wokeism can’t blur us from the reality that African technology and institutions were hilariously behind the times.

[@rileyrose5166]

He literally addresses that same point in the video, what are you talking about?

[@scygnius]

@@rileyrose5166 No, he mentions it but then quickly brushes it aside.

[@Jay_Johnson]

I counter this with the mods for the game which present many nominally playable states especially in west Africa and it actually better represents the colonisation in my opinion.

[@furthestborealia1001]

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?

[@furthestborealia1001]

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!

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

@@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.

[@jaztin7960]

@@RomanHistoryFan476AD 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.

[@AlexanderFaust1404]

@@RomanHistoryFan476AD 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?

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

@@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.

[@WWFanatic0]

"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.

[@aenesidemus8819]

I got here by randomly searching "Victoria 3" in the KZbin search bar lmao.

[@seffffee1333]

Same but I didn’t enjoy the video..

[@lifeuncovered6188]

I’m from Reddit haha

[@FazeParticles]

@@seffffee1333 was it edgy, woke or boring?

[@fatcatseko7936]

@@FazeParticles too much info

[@seffffee1333]

@@FazeParticles Boring

[@gsmiro]

Europeans develop games that is surely based on European ideas and of course should be Eurocentric. Chinese and Japanese develop Asian historical games based on Asian ideas about history, politics and other things. It is Asian-centric. So it should not be an issue at all at how Africa was addressed. Because from the European point of view, Africa had no organized states, let along a modern nation state, with perhaps the only exception of Ethiopia. Africa at that time were populated with tribes. They do not have the characteristics of a centralized and organized state, with a written sets of laws and rules. So from the European point of view, the political map was empty. Also, the ideas of progression and development in Vic 2 and EU4 are European ideas! Many of them are modern European progressive/liberal ideas of how society "progress". So the entire game is totally Eurocentric even if they put tribes on Africa. Because according to Eastern philosophies and doctrines, those "progresses" are not good. Eastern ideas such as in Islam and in East Asia (Confucian) the idea of ruling is to keep peace and harmony and to maintain a steady state in the society, to keep law and order, to keep everyone in their place to keep the society running. So the tech research and the philosophical progression of ideas and political and economical reforms were NEVER part of the Eastern (Middle East and Far East) mindset and it is also very different even from Eastern European mindset. The game is totally a Western European, progressive-centric game! So if we want to be less Eurocentric, then simply just go play games developed by other cultures. Japanese do a great job in developing historical Asian games and they reflect the Asian-centric ideas of how Asian history were played out. If we want Afro-centric games, then have Africans develop such game that focus on their history and how their tribes operated with their tribal values and parameters.

[@gonzalodiaz9326]

I've only gotten halfway through the video and don't get what he's really talking about. So what if it's eurocentric? World history is eurocentric, we've controlled and influenced directly or indirectly basically every corner of the planet during the last 4 centuries.

[@fortinueg6398]

@@gonzalodiaz9326 it’s more drawing attention to it than saying it’s a problem. In the OP’s mind “reactionary” thought and Eurocentrism is already a negative so there’s no reason to explain that. While you and I might disagree heavily with the video’s creator because we are pro-Eurocentric/pro-western for our self interest/we think it is superior, he is an American and a progressive. Not saying he’s “muh commie” but still allies himself with people like 3 arrows. I think the video is interesting and his take on Spengler is apt, his core ideas are probably fundamentally different from ours so that’s why it might not make much sense at some points.

[@PotatoMcWhiskey]

Only mistake is that "begging a question" doesn't mean "Asking a question" around 6:30ish

[@Rosencreutzzz]

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.

[@fannymcflanagan2732]

I bet y’all know each other irl

[@ajarofmayonnaise3250]

Didn’t expect you to see here lol

[@AlbertAdamsLincoln]

Bruh, I dont think Victoria 2 present Africa with blank map would cause people to think it's really a unsettled land wait for colonist to take it. Victoria 2 is kinda hard strategy game, the one who play it would have much more brain to understand that.

[@luminomancer5992]

No, it being a hard strategy game doesnt make sure of that. HoI is a hard strategy game and that community has struggled with stupid nazis , all the time. And as you can see in this very comment section there are tons of people that misrepresent or ignore africa to reduce it all to basically uncontested land.

[@gregtaylor9806]

The argument would be a lot stronger if you did a video (or a series of videos) featuring evidence for and, outlines of, the states that existed there. Paradox does not make the case that people do not live in the ‘empty’ regions. It posits that those regions did not have anything resembling a state. No political apparatus that could participate in the mechanics of the game. I think this is accurate and would appreciate being corrected here by actual evidence. Modern thought has its own sociological assumptions that are as hand-wavy (if not more) as the Victorian era. We should seek evidence above all (and accurate historical info about the people in those regions may not even exist because of a lack of writing, is that meaningless?)

[@michadomeracki5910]

You want an evidence? Oh no not this. We don't care about truth we care about feelings.

[@vercot7000]

I'd say if they added in the jihadi states of west africa, the fulani sultanates and such it would be fine

[@Jay_Johnson]

Look at HPM

[@coatofarms4439]

How would having 300 tribes that WILL be steamrolled by even mediaeval nations really benefit the game? It’s just easier and better to leave it uncolonized land because it won’t be by the end of the game.

[@coatofarms4439]

@Phillis "Dick" Black There is a massive difference between fighting off Turks which nearly happened and fighting a pre dreadnought with stone arrows. Constantinople nearly held off and the Turks could have been broken in Europe, the Pope was building momentum for a 10th Crusade which could be increased with a victory at Constantinople, The Order of The Dragon (Skanderbeg, Vlad The Impaler, Vuk Lazarević, Konstantin and Fruzhin) was rampaging across Ottoman Europe which would have been disastrous for the Turks. A tribe in Africa has no chance at stopping the Europeans, even victories like Isandlwana required an incredible numbers advantage and incompetence by the Europeans which only resulted in a fleeting victory by the next day. There would be no way to make playing a tribe fun or possible because you would spend all game trying to modernize to a Napoleonic level while Europe is devolving howitzers and tanks. The rest of the world is playing a grand strategy game while Africa is still playing a survival game. Diversity brings no benefit here either because every tribe would have the same problem of trying to make "The British Grenadiers March" stop playing.

[@Zen-rw2fz]

why wouldn't you? it would be a more realistic experience both from european and african persepective. fun from games like these comes from a historical experience

[@coatofarms4439]

@@Zen-rw2fz It wouldn't add anything, there would be almost no fight for Europeans because their massive technological gap. In Victoria II there are mods that add tribes but they are easily over run by a few brigades and only act as free colonial regions that you don't have to risk getting into competition with other colonial powers for.

[@Zen-rw2fz]

@@coatofarms4439 do remember how the army has been completely revamped by know the game is more about politics than it is about conquering everything with your infinite ammounts of units. it makes a colonialism more realistic.

[@coatofarms4439]

@@Zen-rw2fz That has been the greatest and most foolish mistake paradox has made and will also make it even more impossible to play in Africa because they specifically said it is only possible to win with superior industry and technology which Africa has neither at the start of the game and realistic colonialism WILL involve all of Africa being taken by Europeans. You can easily tell the massive power imbalance when Bismarck is able to establish a congress to allow Europeans to make claims largely before Europeans would ever set foot on 80 percent of the territory and there was no challenge by the natives that changed the results.

[@douglasianscott3599]

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.

[@Rosencreutzzz]

Fascinating! …and concerning.

[@yddet4369]

Wait why doesn't the literal communist party not take the Marxist view of history?

[@douglasianscott3599]

@@yddet4369 Because it is not convenient for cementing their monopoly of power.

[@yddet4369]

@@douglasianscott3599 Makes sense in practical terms, but still pretty crazy in ideological terms.

[@acksawblack]

@@yddet4369 Why doesnt the democratic republic of Korea have fair and free elections?

[@thomasjones3206]

You forget that most of recent world history was Euro centric (Around the last 500 years).

[@EkoFranko]

NOOO WE WUZ KANGZ'N'SHIEET

[@darkdragon5520]

@@EkoFranko Is that some kind of racist comment?

[@EkoFranko]

@@darkdragon5520 it can't be racist i am from russia aka northern Nigeria.

[@darkdragon5520]

@@EkoFranko ❓❓❓❓what?

[@caiden5855]

@@darkdragon5520 Do you not understand what a joke is?

[@CDang-ms6dc]

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.

[@Rosencreutzzz]

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.

[@Arcaryon]

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?

[@OlafJorigson]

@@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.

[@Arcaryon]

​@@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.

[@OlafJorigson]

@@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.

[@colinbakker4085]

If you want to play as an African nation then play EU4 or CK3. Victoria is a game about European industrialization and colonialism and as a result focuses on Europe and industrialization and colonial mechanics. For that reason the only playable nations in Victoria 2 are European nations, their former American colonies and Japan. All the other countries that Paradox bothered adding are just to give the map more color or because they were historically relevant. The only reason Indian nations or China are present is because they posed a significant enough presence to warrant the diplomacy system. The African nations were partitioned away in a four month conference and immediately overrun by a vastly technologically superior enemy. You really cannot criticize a game that is about Europe for being centered around Europe. A development studio with limited time and resources is going to devote that time and resource to creating the core part of their game, not to modeling some borderless decentralized nation in the congo that will be immediately conquered regardless of what the player does. The land is stateless in the game because there was no state there that the European colonizers (THE FOCUS OF THE GAME) were negotiating with or recognizing in any meaningful way. The fact that Paradox is caving to Twitter people and fake intellectual video-essayists by creating "decentralized nations" that will probably be unplayable entirely or unplayable in their difficulty is infuriating. This is the kind of activity that screws up gameplay. When Paradox released a DLC for EU4 in an attempt to accurately present native Americans and to make native nations more playable, they made the natives far too powerful and ahistorical, and as a result, it is one of their worst rated DLCs yet. (Even including native nations makes no sense. Why are there random native tribes presented as organized states that you must fabricate claims and declare wars on, but also "empty" land right next to them that can be colonized regularly.) I don't understand why people can't stop complaining and trying to ruin things for such stupid reasons. Are you going to criticize chess next for placing the King above the Queen in importance and containing horses which were not present in the Americas before colonialism? Chess is pretty Eurocentric if you ask me. Should we rename the King to the Shah and make the horse a camel to be less Eurocentric? Or is it OK for a game about Europe, made by a European company, and released for a majority Western audience to focus primarily on Europe instead of wasting its time drawing some imaginary border for a decentralized, borderless tribe so that some white youtuber can pretend he is a savior of the African people? I'm begging you to shut up, complete your philosophy degree, and work as a grocery store bagger. You aren't smart or deep, you're annoying.

[@JohnSmith-kb4re]

>I don't understand why people can't stop complaining and trying to ruin things for such stupid reasons. I'll give you one: The desperate screeches of someone who is powerless and will never amount to anything or make any change in the world crying out for equality regardless of the topic. The worst kind of inequality is bringing equality where there should be none. Yet slave-minded idiots will push their ideal of equality in ANY and EVERY topic they can find; they'll grasp at the straws to attack anyone like a cornered rabbit because they know they're powerless to do anything of actual weight in their worthless existences. It's a time period where the technological disparity between the great powers and the others were at an all-time high, to the point that the great powers could send a handful of men, guns-blazing and vaccinated against the diseases rampant in the region, and inevitably take over any bit of territory they wanted. So naturally the ones who had absolutely zero way of catching up without help, or defending themselves, should be able to stand against these behemoths! It's equality at its finest! Everyone should in every situation have equal opportunity! You know, just like in EU4 how a native consistently has as much income, manpower and army size as the Ottomans in 1600 with all of modern US under it, all thanks to the well-received DLC you mentioned.

[@fredericchopin5222]

Not to interrupt your furious rage that you've frothed yourself into, but you'll find, if you googled it, that the king in chess is the shah; chess comes comes from persia. Checkmate comes from Shah Mat meaning "the king is defeated"

[@julius43461]

Without even watching the video, I'll just say that many people are overthinking this. African countries were not included for the same reason spoons and forks are not something you can carry in shooters. Doesn't mean they don't exist, but they are just not needed. Victoria is about great powers and how they shaped the world around them. Also, there could be issues with representing anything correctly in Africa, as data from that period could be lacking.

[@grub2692]

leftist man play paradox games for the very first time POV

[@athanaricwilhelmsson]

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.

[@James-ip8xs]

Nihilism just seems like a by-word for mass depression.

[@riverman6462]

@@James-ip8xs That's incredibly reductive

[@geraldfreibrun3041]

The question is how to rouse people under a common narrative, while also not letting the narrative spiral out of control.

[@charlesramirez587]

@@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.

[@finnb2318]

@@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.

[@krzysztofkozowicz9830]

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.

[@Rosencreutzzz]

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.

[@MrBell-iq3sm]

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.

[@Rosencreutzzz]

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).

[@Jay_Johnson]

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.

[@carmofantasmapiu5575]

This is a very bad "video essay" 40000 views were surprising, I tought that quality was really declining on youtube. Then I opened the channel saw the little views on other videos and it made more sense.

[@julius43461]

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.

[@SmashingCapital]

relevant figures are and were everywhere

[@nerdsoft9964]

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

[@Alpffine]

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.

[@incognito-px3dz]

@@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.

[@nerdsoft9964]

@@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.

[@SpudgunOfficial]

I sentence you to 28 minutes left-leaning white guy video essay

[@TheLazyBot]

Copium

[@hoxtalicous8986]

spudgun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@kusuma6852]

Interesting that a video that talks all about "framing," the conclusion is framed in a way that presumes "reactionary fatalism" to be false. Just as Africa wasn't truly empty, there wouldn't be so many reactionaries if there wasn't a shred of truth in it.

[@GojiraTX]

Ironic bias is always my favorite. I love it when people are guilty of the exact thing they criticize. We all do it to some degree and I always find it genuinely fascinating.

[@McHobotheBobo]

Every good (that is, more likely to succeed) deception contains some part of the truth in it

[@shamusson]

@Jean Sanchez Okay, were any actual arguments against the idea of civilizational cycles posed in the vid? Cus I sure didn't see any

[@shamusson]

@Jean Sanchez My point being he didn't pose any arguments of his own as to why Spengler is wrong, he just rejected him for ideological reasons.

[@charliebarton]

To whoever made this video: Please, for the sake of your own soul, do not copy academic sentence structure. It's not clever, it's not fun. The point of this kind of talk is, more often than not, to mask the fact that you're either not saying anything new, or you're trying to hide the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

[@acksawblack]

No its just a linguistic mode. It is a way of fitting into the establishment and an expected use of language that varies by field. Which I find to be a bad thing but its not intentionally written to mask anything. For a video essay it is useless and alienates an audience, being detrimental in trying to communicate clearly. The style of writing doesn't hide anything and shit writing is still shit writing its just written in a different convention. The real way to hide shit and feign knowledge is to claim you will look into doing further studies in the future, simply labelling your findings as preliminary or exploratory. Academic writing is just a way to signal to other academics that you know what the expected norms of the field are, with most just doing it subconsciously as reading papers slowly warps their style of writing through osmosis.

[@wrjtung3456]

The Berlin conference wasn’t about partitioning Africa but it was to setup rules for colonization

[@TheJbirddude867]

Of course game is supposed to have a Eurocentric viewpoint. The game is literally called Victoria for this reason.

[@Tobyknoby0]

he acknowledges that at 5:31

[@zarlei6048]

The charge of “eurocentrism” has always been bizarre to me. Write your own books about yourselves if you want one so bad.

[@cocopus]

they have?

[@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443]

​@@cocopusthey literally haven't

[@nolabtoday1371]

​@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443 If you look at any group of people, you will find a rich literary tradition if you actually take the time to look, from China to India to the abbasid caliphate. All of them have many work that have left their mark in history.

[@stevesmithy5644]

this video reeks of marxist revisionism. i thought the marx bit at the beginning was a joke, but it apparently wasn't

[@Critical_Hit]

What bad thing was said here?

[@marcino457]

based

[@manofthehour88]

Perhaps games are Eurocentric because Europe is superior

[@manofthehour88]

@@longnoseboi Perhaps I know a thing or two of history

[@doubledirections7221]

Based

[@CarpeVerpa]

By what metric? How is that metric an objective one compared to any other metric?

[@manofthehour88]

@@CarpeVerpa The west is objectively superior...

[@josephb.1425]

Yet Europe's empires went from their peaks to nearly nonexistent in less than a hundred years. Certainly, France and Britain have major influences across their former colonies, but China's rapidly taking people's places. Empires rise and empires fall, and though some may surpass others in their power for now, to pretend that one continent is greater than another is frankly both stupid and racist. The British Empire was the largest in history, sure, but it's gone, just as the treasury of Mansa Musa or the hordes of Genghis Khan.

[@insomnolant6043]

Gay.

[@Rosencreutzzz]

Anime pfp lmao.

[@insomnolant6043]

@@Rosencreutzzz Ok gay.

[@unregierbar7694]

Extreme white guilt in this one lol By the way Africa was really just land up for grabs at that time, from a military perspective. It even still is in a way. Your virtue signalling is the biggest problem in this topic. Not how Paradox was designing their games.

[@hispalismapping155]

Yes bro!!! 3 tribes in Mzab are more important than a german revolution!!!

[@darkdragon5520]

Oh boy, here come the idiots

[@vercot7000]

White guilt is good. Your ancestors were the worst group out of all other groups. Also africa being up for land grabs has nothing to do with demonstrating what groups inhabit a region. I can see from your intelligence why employers choose East Asians over your own people in the workplace lmao

[@vercot7000]

@@hispalismapping155 It's almost like you can have both lmao

[@hispalismapping155]

@@vercot7000 We all know Paradox is so historically accurrate. We will have to wait 3 years to someone who makes an actual Africa map mod

[@colm9419]

Well then, this started well, before becoming mind numbingly devastatingly BORING. I lasted 14 minutes

[@brandonlyon730]

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.

[@Rosencreutzzz]

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.

[@brandonlyon730]

@@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.

[@hyperion3145]

@@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.

[@brandonlyon730]

@@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.

[@Jay_Johnson]

@@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.

[@crazehsmile]

"The gameplay is prioritizing the western experience" - no shit? In a game about industrialization and economy, during a time mostly only Europe and the Americas industrialized? Colour me fucking surprised And miss me with that shit about erasing people, it's a fucking 12 y.o. game dude go look at CK2 on release and tell me how many people should get offended CK2 didn't represent them correctly. This is literally the most pointless video I watched, the simple fact is that it's an old game and represents the period where Europe was the unmatched hegemon of the world, hell both China and India were taught that but somehow it seems to complicated for online intellectuals, also too much philosophy in a video about a damn video game lmao bro calm down

[@MrMiddleWick]

If you think that the video was commenting on whether Europe was powerful at that point in history, then you missed the entire point. The question isn't what, but rather how things are represented.

[@crazehsmile]

@@MrMiddleWick Yeah they're represented badly because it's a 12 year old game, I literally said that

[@caiden5855]

Random tribes shouldn't be countries

[@sethdowner9112]

Maybe but they can make states

[@deshawnmoore1731]

No one is saying “Add the Maasai” or “add the Ebuki” who today even after industrialization have small populations People are saying add Ashanti (3.4 million) Benin (2 million) Oyo (2.3 million) Bournu (5 million) etc… Add the kingdoms that existed

[@ayumu_osaka]

Its laughable to even pretend like Vic3s Africa map looks the way it does because of realism. The devs have pretty much confirmed they dont care about gameplay or realism. Theyre doing the map like this simply because it would be bad pr in 2022 to have the map be empty.

[@Zen-rw2fz]

or maybe the do because it better represents history? you don't seem like you know any history yourself anyway...

[@ayumu_osaka]

@@Zen-rw2fz wtf are you talking about

[@unregierbar7694]

@@Zen-rw2fz History? European Empires with Guns vs African Tribes with sticks and bows. The games of Paradox vastly overrate Africans and even Native Americans just for Political Correctnes + Gameplay reasons so the players can enjoy playing as them. The games don´t even remotely represent the superiority of the Colonial Powers over African "states".

[@Zen-rw2fz]

​@@unregierbar7694 while many africans did lack behind interms of millitary technology sticks and bows is an exageration still, none of the game portrays african countries as anything easy victoria 3 doesn't do that either.

[@vercot7000]

@@ayumu_osaka Who cares if they're doing it for bad pf? The history they show in africa is correct and offers flavor

[@skzyr8865]

Well this game is called "Victoria 3" as the queen Victoria from an European GP, not "an African o American leader 1"

[@Jay_Johnson]

Imperator Rome would be even more boring if the only playable nation was Rome. This argument is dumb

[@skzyr8865]

@@Jay_Johnson have i said England should be the only playable nation? Nope. Both Victoria and EU are based on a European viewpoint, that's why those countries have more content and are more important than the rest. Hoi4 is literally focused on WW2 and people don't complain.

[@Jay_Johnson]

@@skzyr8865 Yes but in EU4 the native Americans an Africans exist. they are just doing that to a lesser extent in Vic3. I don't get your problem. most aren't even going to be playable.

[@dimitriantanov3150]

I think you oversimplify Spengler to a fault. His belief is a German nationalist one, he defends and romanticizes German history (in the Goethian rhetoric) and that Germany's progression into a Protestant Industrialized nation was due to a superior cultural direction than the dominantly catholic/orthodox and colonialist nature of the rest of Europe. That if German culture was to be minimized and contained, it would be a cultural detriment to Europe and the world. Spangler isnt saying "Eurocenticism is wrong", he is saying "A Eurocentric view which aborts the German cultural progression is wrong". That the unification of German states due to external (European) security pressues ended the 'German cultural period'. Spengler blames the rest of Europe for all of Germany's problems.... Something that German intellectuals at the time unfortunately embraced.. "Germany is right and all of Europe is wrong, we must free Germany and end the current order in Europe.... for culture" ^Sound like a certain person you read about in history class?

[@the_tactician9858]

While I agree Spengler, like 90% of the intellects of the *fin de siècle*, was extremely nationalistic, and therefore still heavily embraced his German nation, I doubt one can really call him proto-fascist, because he puts the main focus on the German culture, rather than the German ethnicity. To Spengler, what made Germany so great was the fact that it had brought forth great minds in music, philosophy and art, and the fact that Europe now was squabbling with each other for power was a sign (for him) that that phase of culture was now gone, and after this only decline could come. That also explains both why he decided to vote the NSDAP in 1932 (after all, that was a party who recognized that decline and proposed a change of course, and he probably was not fully unaffected by the Dolchstoss theory either) and why that same party decided to burn his works for being against the party (as squabbling for power is the only thing that party was for, you can imagine books telling people such behaviour leads to decline doesn't sit well with the 'take back what's ours' message)

[@dimitriantanov3150]

@@the_tactician9858 If his beliefs sound fascists... and he votes fascist, he is at the very least proto-fascist. Saying he was betrayed by the party he voted for isnt an exception, consider the Nazi Brownshirts. Many of whom were purged once the Nazi party gained power, did them being purged by fascists make them less fascist? Certainly not.

[@the_tactician9858]

@@dimitriantanov3150 Still, Spengler did not advocate for racial superiority nor did he call for a crusade against other cultures or races. I struggle to see how he is more nationalistic than the average European from his time, and what can be defined as proto-fascism rather than chauvinism and fascism itself.

[@dimitriantanov3150]

@@the_tactician9858 If you struggle to see how Spengler differs from other nationalists at the time, consider the following points: - A typical nationalist at the time desired for their ethnic lands to be apart of their ethno-state. -A typical nationalist, at the time, supported autarky from their neighboring countries. Now, consider Spengler: -Spengler has little to do with advocating an ethnostate -Spengler has little to do with advocating economic policy -Spengler DOES however advocate for Germany to remilitarize and ofr its foreign policy goals to be a complete upheaval of the 'European Order", for Germany to reduce and diminish the great powers of Europe, until Germany could be insulated and secure enough to re-enter a cultural period. ^^Do you see the difference between Spengler and a typical nationalist? Not only did he vote Nazi, but everything about his political statements lean in favor of the Nazi's latter.. less initially expressed goals, to goto war with all of Europe. For sake of "culture".

[@the_tactician9858]

@@dimitriantanov3150 You make some good points here. I think I agree that he has proto-fascist elements in his reasoning, and as such we should be mindful of that with his works, but I think that is not necessarily his main point he is trying to make.

[@melvinbrotherofthejoker436]

It’s kinda interesting the more they pretend Hunter gatherer tribes were comparable to nation states the worse the games get

[@durianjaykin3576]

But i still want to play them tho :(

[@Zen-rw2fz]

learn some history, maybe you will through the game, if not I'm perfectly happy if you stay out of the game's community

[@melvinbrotherofthejoker436]

@@Zen-rw2fz Ah yes the Tswana a HUGE united singular tribe and not just an ethnolingustic group of many different tribes I remember now. The funny thing is by all this virtue signalling it's LESS historically accurate maybe you should learn actual history instead of playing video game lol

[@durianjaykin3576]

@@Zen-rw2fz we already got white supremasists in the community,.. I dont think excluding him will do any good

[@Zen-rw2fz]

@@durianjaykin3576 yeah, I don't really care what people believe in, I'm just excited for the game and would like to try out some of the african and asiatic countries

[@arthinugami]

When Belgium can conquer large populations in Africa it really puts prospective on why all that African land should be grey or just a stepping stone for bigger nations.

[@hyperion3145]

You could just give countries cheaper CBs to conquer it, the Congo shouldn't be another placeholder just so Belgium can conquer it. If there was the possibility of Africans resisting Europeans and changing the game, even just having an extra war, it'd be a lot better than just EU4 style of colonization where you're just staring at empty land and half the natives can't do anything.

[@arthinugami]

@@hyperion3145 I mean sure you can make nations there, but they would serve little purpose other than to slow the game down with lag. Realistically none of the nations stood a chance in the heart of darkness. If there were nations that could stand up to Europeans it would be nations like Ghana and Liberia. Otherwise it would be a meme like Luxembourg world conquest, just too far away from reality

[@blackshirtsocialist1457]

To be fair there are not many written source about Africa (except west and east Africa)

[@Sir.suspicious]

As an eurocentric person, I can say I definitely don't include the US in it

[@JohnDoe-bh2lp]

Europe's only relevant because of USA

[@shorewall]

Yeah, because the US has surpassed Europe.

[@Sir.suspicious]

@@shorewall Thank God for that 🙏 The less famous my country is the less people will come to disturb it

[@m.a.118]

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.

[@t_johan]

powerful, stunning and brave the lack of representation of tribal africans with no writing systems and little to 0 historiography is painfully noticeable i hope victoria 3 devs give BIPOC some extra attention even if it delays the release by a few years... too much eurocentrism from their games

[@cseijifja]

Instead of the representation of tribal europeans with no real writing and ltitle to 0 historiogaphy until rome forced them in imperator ?, fuck and even then , it took them 800 more years to learn to fucking write on their own around the age of charlemagne. Africans have showed to be rather fast learners.

[@CartmanZuero1000]

And it pains me to see how unfaithful to history the game is, especially considering the industrial revolution which is concentrated solely in the West when in fact many great tribes in west Africa had lucrative cement factories by the game start

[@notavailable6460]

You are somewhat write but your framing is intellectually dishonest and even a little racist. Not that you care.

[@joshzulu8444]

@@cseijifja Cap.

[@Despot_janny]

@@cseijifja your comparison would make sense if the romans were roaming around europe, mowing down gauls with maxim guns

[@samuelhiatt9338]

Eurocentrism is such a joke of a term. Europeans and their descendants have forged the current pinnacle of human achievement by creating the West. By the West, I primarily mean the era of massive economic and technological advancement following WW2. Noting the most significant achievements of a time period doesn't mean you're being biased towards the race or nations that made those achievements. It means you're reading history as is rather than considering lesser accomplishments to be equal simply to prop up one group to equal another. There were points in history where places like Egypt, Persia, China, and India were massive players on the world stage. Those days are long past. Until the recent re-emergence of China, the world of technological and economic advancement after WW2, and to an extent since the Columbian exchange, has been dominated by France, Germany, the UK, and the US. It's not eurocentric to acknowledge that fact. Today, the reality of the world is still largely eurocentric, as the primary players on the world stage are still almost all European, with the exceptions of China, India, and Japan. If 90% of power and advancement resides with one group of people, it is not out of some sort of prejudice when you acknowledge that that is the case. In pre-Roman times, Europe was a barren backwater and power resided in Egypt, China, Persia, and Greece. It is a simple fact that history changes. We live in a eurocentric era. We are ignorant to pretend that that is not the case just to feel better about ourselves.

[@Rosencreutzzz]

You're not wrong, though we don't agree on everything. I said that Eurocentrism is a selectively valuable term, precisely for the nature of exploring and describing eras of European hegemony in history, did I not? The mechanisms of attaching shame to the idea or indeed a guilt are muddied, part of it is due to fringe sycophants telling their followers that The West™ is under attack and that they must remain proud and vigilant etc etc, constructing a fear that they can't "acknowledge real history" and the other part is, I find, a misunderstanding of what the "de-centring Europe" conversation is about. Apologies if that's a condescending intro, but given the number of gamer-chair historians just saying things to be inflammatory or people sending me ten paragraphs of truisms about their imagined understanding of a continent based on...I don't know, something they learned from Stefan Moylneux or something, I have become cautious in which comments I respond to. Though I will certainly push back a bit and say that history also changes in the way that we learn to adopt differing lenses, or indeed that there was simply more we did not know than we realized, and part of that can come from over-reliance on a Eurocentric lens, for example. That's how you get the innumerable comments on this video saying that Africa had no civilizations prior to colonialism, as though we don't have an ever expanding historical record of states, societies, colonial resistance, wars against one another, defensive wars against European incursion, cultural traditions, and linguistic traditions that go back thousands of years.

[@iSilverGame]

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

[@worldcollapse]

* insert soyjak * NOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE AFRICA IN MY VIDEO GAME

[@cocopus]

* insert soyjak * NOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST TALK ABOUT AFRICA IN MY VIDEO GAME. see? i can do it too ;)

[@lukeryan2285]

I cant wait to play as a completely civilized nation in africa that never discovered the wheel for themselves.

[@MrBell-iq3sm]

Saying African civilisations never discovered the wheel is akin to saying the pyramids were built by aliens, the first moon landing was in the 40s, but the one in the 60s was impossible or that America was uninhabited before Europeans appeared.

[@caiden5855]

Another left wing politics video disguised as a video game essay number #67813

[@theggfloupin4084]

Pretty good doe.

[@lifeuncovered6188]

Idk there’s quite a lot of right wing stuff out there too

[@ten_tego_teges]

Well, he really got me until the conclusion section, pretty decent video if you ignore the opinion piece in the end.

[@wouterm8145]

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.

[@Local_Guild-Socialist]

Excellent critique! I must say, as someone who is somewhat sympathetic to the works of Spengler and with reactionary politics as a whole, your critique of him has been one of the best I've seen so far. The problem with Oswald Spengler (and reactionaryism as a whole to an extent) is his pessimism and overall lack of any conclusive solution to the ails of so-called "progress" instead he relies on the foundational reactionary myth of "the past is better than the present" thus, actually failing to critique "civilization" and all subsequent stages due to the objectively superior conditions that exist under it. Much the same way Marx fails to critique liberalism, Spengler fails to critique "progress" and thus both's end goals will inevitably collapse into something that is not better but rather merely anti-thetical to each's main adversity (state-capitalism in the case of Marxism, fascism in the case of Spenglerianism)

[@arbendit4348]

This just shows a lack of understanding from you about Spengler. A common misconception is that "The Fall of the West" is his permanent view that was not subject to change, when infact this is not the case. When you say that he only sees the past that is also not true and has been addressed in his later writings that were unfortunately never completed. Spengler saw a silver lining in this decline, however inevitable he viewed it, it was the duty of western man according to him not to slowly fade away, but to burn brightly, powerfully, and intensely in a sense shortening the entire process but also creating something worth fighting for and cherishing even after the decline, which could potentially become the catalyst for something new. That is why he viewed the concept of self sacrifice even against overwhelming odds as the ultimate proof for the value of men and civilizations as a whole. The will to fight, and strength to never give up.

[@s7robin105]

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

[@FlosBlog]

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.

[@riverman6462]

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.

[@FlosBlog]

@@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.

[@riverman6462]

@@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.

[@FlosBlog]

@@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?

[@riverman6462]

@@FlosBlog I don't know any such game. Can you tell me the name?

[@OldSlimJolo]

Even with its disappointments, Vic 3 could *almost* be palatable, but honestly its so poorly optimized that games past 1900 just grind to such a slow crawl for the time compression. I feel like they really missed the mark with things like their warfare system etc and the lack of what feels like an economy for what is a build-queue sim just kinda keeps me from actually getting into the game. To its credit, i think the game would be way more interesting in Multiplayer, but over all lots of mechanics of the game feel like they fall flat or just work poorly. It feels like the game was unfinished at release, tbh, and we're left to wait for it to be patched in now instead lol. In terms of all the Paradox games that include colonialism, I think their presentation of it in game is one of the better mechanics in game, tbh, namely because while 'decentralized' in the eyes of dev and the context of game, they are at least still nations or several nations population the provinces and european colonization is displacing and encroaching on them - though the interactions aren't really much deeper than that surface level interpretation and the only real consequence is it sometimes results in an uprising but doesn't really delve into the consequences of colonialism or that kind of displacement on peoples there. I would actually bet that a fair amount of the nations around Africa etc are still represented as decentralized for the sole sake of how gameplay mechanics works and needing to block territory by tech level from conquest / colonialism by making them decentralized states in game, for the sake of limiting the expansion until the 1880s+ partition of africa among western powers to the historical timeline, or else players would otherwise be able to access them usually by 1860s on like how AI etc access it in games usually. I'd bet if more nations instead of the games 'decentralized' nations were there, you'd otherwise see fairly fast expansion by players. Instead its kinda locked behind tech of getting Quinine etc so players cant really play in that area til 1880s or little sooner. So not the worst. i just think decentralized states in general are kind of a concession for the sake of how paradox wants the game flow with the mechanics they have, but decentralized states are probably also still not very good representations of the people or polities actually in those places. At the same time, in terms of Paradox games, its nice for once that finally in all these 'empty' places people are actually living there this time, and youre fiendeshly displacing them.

[@arbendit4348]

You're right, it's not a good representation because there were no states in most of Africa during this period at all. There were tribal entities, but they were ultimately tiny, and very rarely relevant in any serious capacity. To show them as "States" even if decentralized is extremely generous.

[@flyingfoamtv2169]

this channel is a perfect mix of everything i like.

[@sharpspoon7371]

Dog, I do not want my game running at 12 frames just because you wanna give babbatunde the fourth an area of land that's just gonna get gobbled up

[@BkennyP]

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.

[@obtusemooose]

did you finish the video

[@incognito-px3dz]

Europe birthed modern civilisation and technology and was the most important part of the globe from the 15th-20th century. Cry harder

[@Zquirrelthing]

bro, you clearly didn't even bother to watch the video

[@TheLeonhamm]

But then .. colonialism is not the same as imperialism, nor are they interdependent. The most successful colonialists in recent history have been the British, English-speaking Americans, and .. the Russians; settling vast tracks of land with their dependent/ supportive peoples (making viable colonies beside others, over them, or replacing them; here culture is a key interest). Empire, however, is a matter of power, taking it, exercising it, and holding on to it - regardless of settlement and re-settlement for original or migrant peoples; neither culture nor civilisation is key to understanding commercial and governmental control. The Irish, for instance, have won no worldwide empire, they are not generally recognised as being part of the 'European' civilisation format (other than as labouring side-kicks to the English), nor are they regarded as particularly influential in cultural matters (unlike the Scots under English patronage), yet there are Patricks, St Patrick Days, and Paddy's Pubs (with or without a bicycle outside) thriving in the most unexcepted places - even though Patrick, himself, wasn't Irish at all, but British (Romano-Welsh or Pictish, or both, or neither). And, by and large, the Irish seem to fit in with their new neighbours fairly well, not by ceasing to be 'Irish' (until very recently that is, alas modern Ireland seems not to be especially proud of being Irish, deeming their past to be backward) but they get along by being .. more, rather than less, useful; indeed, that is colonialism. ;o)

[@uckbritley1305]

Incredible! This is all entirely wrong. 1st of all, 2/3 of your examples of "the most successful colonialists" in recent history are empires which seems to defeat your entire argument that they aren't interdependent immediately, and then your other one is America which hardly colonized anything? Why would you include a nation that practiced way more imperialism than colonialism as your example of a successful colonial power? Again defeating your own argument bro. A better example would be portugal, spain, or even belgium and netherlands...all empires or kingdoms so it still defeats your point but at least they actually did significant colonizing. Then this part confused me, you go on about...Irish culture? What? Colonies of Ireland include...what exactly? Cultural exports are not colonialism. Cultural exports are the natural effects of multiculturalism and cooperation between countries. It has literally 0 to do with colonialism whatsoever. Colonialism is when a country forms a colony in a land. The one thing you are right about, literally the only thing (sorry) , is that it isn't the same thing as imperialism. However it was mostly practiced by imperialist countries during the colonial era, and the act of colonizing a land that's already settled (which was most of them) is inherently imperialist, so imperialism and colonialism are definitely interconnected in both a historical and practical sense.

[@TheLeonhamm]

@@uckbritley1305 US America colonised the whole of its now constituent States .. usually, before these became states, and frequently displacing the previous dwellers. There are colonies, i.e. settled groups, of Irish people across the globe distinct from their neighbours as being 'Irish - and proud of it'; though they did not have an empire. Empire refers to 'imperium' - governing control, UB, colonies refer to 'colonia', settlements as enclaves among other peoples; these are - by nature - not the same thing (an empire may well be colonsied by peoples from its dependent domains, but not all empires colonise the territories they conquer or control). Thems facts; it how words work .. even if we like to use them differently. ;o)

[@fuzzirodekill]

read a book

[@TheLeonhamm]

@@fuzzirodekill That you, I like reading - and studying - and understanding. ;o)

[@squaeman_2644]

I'd say the Chinese and Israelites are doing quite well at colonizing aswell!

[@JakubNaceradsky]

Strange video... Its hard to make some place in Victoria for African nations, because if they want some historical accuracy, its just hard to find some developed or developing country here, even if you would lets say favorize Ethiopia and Mali, it would mean unbalancing region developement, and for some African renesance there would be mods or even dlcs for sure. For me, entire video doing it maybe too much political or narative-based, and core dilema would be probably more dev-game oriented. If there would be Eu4-Vic3 save conventor, its would in sec splash all this video overthinking into sea of converted native developed empires. I dont care about Petersen and dont realy even know if i like this video. But Spengler view of things seems realy interesting to me (as philosophy) , maybe today even more accurate than in his time, and i would probably read entire book.

[@michadomeracki5910]

Europe conquered Africa in a moment, It hapened deal with it or we can rewrite the history.

[@CarpeVerpa]

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.

[@dusk6159]

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.

[@CarpeVerpa]

@@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.

[@shronkler1994]

@@dusk6159 the fuck?

[@hrolfthestrange]

Obviously not the direct topic of this video, but i started decline of the West once and I was very impressed with some of the initial ideas, specifically the cultural/civilizational conceptions of time and history itself being central to understanding the cultures and civilizations. Like it's really easy to project ones own base level conceptions into historical people, but realizing that people viewed history and time and their place in it drastically differently across time and space really helps nuance the decisions and practices taken in history. Idk if he was 100% accurate but it's a good factor to keep in mind.

[@Adam-wg2rf]

Idk when i saw it i was sure he was smoking weed or something, he got ideas some are good but i feel like he knows what he's saing only half the time .

[@hrolfthestrange]

@@Adam-wg2rf yeah exactly, like idk if the ancient Egyptians actually viewed time as a very momentary present bookended by infinities of future and past necessarily or that medieval euro people viewed themselves as inhabiting the waning days of a sort of dying world(which I believe is true though) where new technology or prosperity was not a promise of the future, but the idea that people don't/didn't view time as an orderly march forward or that history is knowable or that the future will contain significant changes is important to understand why people did/do things.

[@luckyassassin1]

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.

[@bigbad5067]

ffs people nowadays really think a map game is racist lmao

[@bobing1752]

A map game could be racist though. Not saying these one's are, but one could be

[@sreckocuvalo8110]

Honestly, I don't care about African nations in Victoria, Europa Universalis or Hearts of iron.

[@theguy9208]

Important things done by African nations:

[@user-xsn5ozskwg]

That section about Sprengler's background was hilarious. Had a doctorate he failed to get, saw imperialism through almost every lens possible, voted for the Nazis but didn't like antisemitism when framed as an ethnic issue. The plant-soul stuff only makes it funnier; he'd have an absolutely massive audience of liberals and reactionaries fighting over who they thought he had allegiance to if he was around today.

[@jakecrev5729]

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

[@marshallmccord1352]

Pseudo intellectualism with surface level analysis of a Victorian thinker.

[@jacklaurentius6130]

He should have that as a disclaimer at the start of the video.

[@knownothing3364]

The spenglarian paradox Either he is right with his overview or he is right because populations only intepret things through their own manifestations

[@sch3ffel]

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.

[@knownothing3364]

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

[@vercot7000]

@@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

[@knownothing3364]

@@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

[@vercot7000]

@@knownothing3364 My point was that they were a regional superpower...which is...by definition a geopolitical power lmao

[@lmao.3661]

it's a map game bro

[@ES-rg]

As historian I must disagree. Because u made one big mistake that all historians know. Never use todays modern mentality, concepts and ideas on events that occurred before this ideas and concepts were invented. Events and History is just history, it’s objective not like people. So Victoria 3 is just game about historical events how it was, Yes Europeans were bad imperialists but that how it was and game is exactly about how it was. U wanna play for African tribes, please do it, it was hard mode like it was in 19th century. That’s why we like paradox games

[@Rosencreutzzz]

I would claim that’s a mischaracterization of what I said. In fact, I am quite cautious around the idea of projecting ideas backwards into history. I don’t particularly care about the playability of decentralized states and, in fact, I applaud the idea of unplayable “countries” that serve to make the game more complex. My point is that Africa is more accurately represented in this map and that it sets up for a dynamic more reflective of actual European imperialism in Africa. They didn’t just show up and set up camp bloodlessly, there were encroachments and conflicts and you can’t really get that in Victoria 2 with the blank map.

[@goatbackr380]

"Eurocentrism" is in my opinion a dumb thing to get upset over. Of course a society is going to view history through its own lens- it's what's most interesting and relevant to them. I don't think that that's problematic or expressive or racist, I think it's perfectly natural. I'm not offended that Arabs gloss over the American civil war in their history classes, as I can't imagine I'd be very interested in it if I was Arab. Also, the whole world and its media is not Eurocentric. Ironically, people only believe this because they only watch Western media. Watch a Chinese history documentary and it won't talk about the unification of Italy because of course it won't- there a world away from Italy.

[@CarpeVerpa]

As the video says, Eurocentrisn is a lens to view things in. That's not bad in itself, as using different lenses to view history in can give different important insights. Where problems arise is when you only treat one lens as legitimate or worthwhile.

[@abaddonthearmless319]

Couldnt say I care.

[@cocopus]

you're so based and cool bro. why are you here then?

[@cyphermasq7870]

Your conclusion segment assumes and neccisarily rejects any and all non-progressive viewpoints and further lumps them together in a way that seems to be deeply reductionist. Or at least seems reductionist to someone who identifies as reactionary and identifies with some of those ideas. -- an example of the reductionism in reverse (to make it more understandable) would be like a reactionary saying that ultimatly western liberalism/libertarianism and stalinism are cut from the same cloth.

[@Local_Guild-Socialist]

Both Libertarianism and Marxism-Leninism are infact just the two sides of radical-liberalism though...

[@cyphermasq7870]

@LocalRight-Socialist they are derived from enlightenment thought. But it seems to me that liberalism places the sacred value on freedom while marxist thought places the sacred value on equality.-- the ideas are related, but they are not identical.

[@angamaitesangahyando685]

​@@cyphermasq7870The Enlightenment merely secularised the already-present Christian values. Is there much difference between worshipping a hanged deity with BLM? The original civil rights were by de las Casas. - Adûnâi

[@obtusemooose]

@@angamaitesangahyando685 how is blm similar to worshipping jesus?

[@laughing_monk_]

Why so many dislikes? Spengler fans?

[@Local_Guild-Socialist]

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.