Revolutions(and the start of new empires)

[DanM]

I had this idea posted on another thread,but I thought it would get a better response as its own heading(and should have its own);
I think it might be interesting if everytime you had a revolution,there would be a percentage chance that a part of your empire,lets say for example,3 cities on another island,decided not to go in the direction you chose and these 3 cities form their own nation independent of you.This new nation would retain all advances that they had been a part of and would be a force to be reckoned with in their own right;especially if they had room to expand(like the U.S.revolting against England).This might make players think twice about switching governments all the time.
This would also be a way for new empires to "emerge" onto the world stage even though they were not there at the beginning of time.
Maybe spies could be used in this manner as well.Instead of the nation causing the revolt getting control of the city,the spy(s)would attempt to cause unrest in the region in the hopes of causing the area(a group of cities)to revolt and declare independence
(like having a civil war)

[The Joker]

This is a must for Civ3. I would personally like a far more complex model in which the people had their own agenda (which should be changeable depending on your actions and other things), so that if you changed to a gov that the people in one part of your civ didn't like they could revolt. You could send troops there to reinforce your ascendancy, but this would be costy.

[DanM]

Right.
The people should not automatically all be in favor of the new regime.A much deeper political model(and maybe religious)should be incorporated into the game,at least in so far as the general mood of the public on different idealogies.And in knowing the mood of the people,you could make a reasonable judgement on wheather or not it would be a good idea to switch governments.
Let's face it.If in the real world there was a revolution in the U.S.,and after a short period of anarchy(like in civII) they went communist, does anybody really believe that would be the end of it?I think anarchy would reign supreme until a more popular form of government was in place.

[DanM]

Deleting the past history of a government after a revolution seems like an interesting idea.Maybe if the government that was overthrown had a bad reputation,because they were ousted,the standing for the new government would be neutral.But,if the government that was overthrown had a good reputation,the chances are that the new regime may not be looked on so favorably.

I still think that when you have a revolution it should not automatically throw you into civil war every time;maybe increase the chances depending on how extreme the change of government is.And for that matter,I don't think there should ever be a revolution if you go from republic to democracy,its seems more like a natural progression.

[general_charles]

I think there can be a real good compromise made, I think that each time a country has a revolution, it has to be split in 2, a part of the country that remains loyal to the former government and a part that wants to have a new government, this could be done and would add realism, take, say the russian or spanish revolutions, there were two sides and one eventually took the other. To make sure that this works, the two countries should be at war when they start and real mad after each other, which would prevent them from making peace right away. After a while, if war goes on for too long, the two countries will make peace and hold the land they already have. I think that this should make the game much more fun. But to make sure that the revolution was usefull, i think that the past history of a government should be deleted when the government changes, this could therefore be a way of getting back into the game when you attacked some civs at the beginning.

I think the solution is simple. If you're giving more power to the people (higher level goverment) than there should be no unrest at all. Say your a republic and you have a revolution and become a monarchy. You should now have a period of unrest where nothing gets done. The same production and happiness as Anarchy but under a republic government and without the damn screens that say every city is revolting. The only acception would be going from any government to fundamentalism. Than there should be no unrest at all. I think it makes sense. If you're under a despotism and become a democracy than your people are getting so much more power in the government so why would they revolt? Don't use the Iraq example because I consider them partially fundamentalist (because of Saddam and how is picture's everywhere and how he's a Sunni Muslim etc.) Also, going from Fundamentalism to Democracy causes no unrest but going from Fundamentalism to any other government causes unrest. Going from any government above communism to communism (except fundamentalism) causes civil war automatically and one portion of your empire breaks away. Example: China and Taiwan (from republic to "Communism)

So to wrap up...

Despotism --> Monarchy + (no unrest)
Monarchy --> Communism + (no unrest)
Republic --> Democracy + (no unrest)
Democracy --> Republic (unrest)
Democracy --> Tyranny or Commuism (unrest + civil war)
Democracy --> Monarchy (long unrest)
Republic --> Tyranny + Communism (civil war + unrest)
Republic --> Monarchy (unrest)
Republic --> Democracy (no unrest)
Anything --> Fundamentalism (no unrest)
Fundamentalism --> Republic or less (unrest)
Fundamentalism --> Democracy (no unrest)

Communism --> Monarchy or tyranny (civil war, unrest)
Communism --> Republic or democracy (civil war, no unrest)

I think I covered pretty much everything. The last one (communism to republic/democracy) shows that there is a civil war but there is no unrest in the main civs government. I hope that is clear. Any suggestions/comments?




------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

I wanted to add examples (to justify my theory) but didn't have the time so I'm back and here are my examples...

Communism --> Republic or Democracy
*fall of Soviet Union (I'm considering them a democracy)

Monarchy --> Communism (1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia ~ Soviet Union)

Republic --> Democracy (U.S. Articles of Confederation - Constitution)

Republic --> Communism (China under Mao. Taiwan formed and is a republic to this day)

Monarchy/despotism (emperor) --> Republic (Post WWII Japan.)

Democracy --> Republic (Roman Empire - Italy. Not a revolution persay but a gradual change over time)

Democracy --> Communism (Just imagine the US changing to Communism)

Those are a few examples that demonstrate my proposed system.

On an added note, I think that it's ridiculous to have the same production/food harvest in a fundamentalist government as in a Democracy. Any thoughts on this?



------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[DanM]

I think that the chart of governments changing and the effects therof that OrangeSfwr posted would be a more than welcome addition to the new Civ.My only problem I have with it is that ANY government can change to Fundamentalism without even some unrest.Although there are varrying forms of fundamentalist governments,I generally think that they tend to be anywhere from slightly to harshly oppressive at least in so far as you better get with the status quo and believe what we tell you to believe or there is going to be trouble for you.I think that most of the better off democracies of the world would suddenly have alot of very unhappy(or worse)people if strict religious ideals were thrust upon them.Let's face it,most democracies have a wide mix of religious and ethnic groups and you certainly couldn't keep them all happy if you were fundamentalist.Fundamentalist governments of today(Iraq,their track record on ethnic and religious minorities in their country speaks for itself)and the past(the Spanish did a wonderful job during the inquisition,NOT!).tend to be just ONE religion or ideal which dominates all others.
A small example of fundamentalist-type rules is what happened in the U.S.during the prohibition-era.Forbidding the sale,possesion and consumption of any alcohol was prohibited for many years and only ended up promoting the rise of well-funded organized crime gangs.
Anyways,after this long-winded reply,I do like your chart idea
[This message has been edited by DanM (edited May 02, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

Dear OrangeSfwr,

When you give historical illustrations of some point I would advise to consider the consequences of your proposals and only give an example when you have some knowledge about what actually happened. Just one example:

quote: Monarchy --> Communism + (no unrest) Monarchy --> Communism (1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia ~ Soviet Union)

Are you kidding?!?

The Bolshevik coup d'etat was not a revolution: the revolution occurred in February spontaneously; in November the Bolsheviks took power through assault groups.
It was followed by a civil war lasting four years and a war against the peasants who refused to cooperate with the new regime. Only by unprecedented use of terror applied by the Cheka did the Bolsheviks succeed to hold power. In 1921 a major mutiny of sailors and workers(!) broke out in Petrograd and Kronstadt. The Bolsheviks were helped by a severe famine, partly the result of their own agricultural mismanagement, which killed so many people it ended the resistance of the peasants.

Pipes estimates the victims as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia at 23 million people between 1917 and 1922. This figure is two and a half times the number of victims suffered by all belligerent countries in World War I combined. And this war was till then by far the bloodiest of human history!
In Russia, according to Pipes, among males in the age group 16-49 by August 1920 -so before the famine had done its work- 29% of them were dead.

The main reason the Bolsheviks succeeded to remain in power was because in November 1917 almost no one was willing to defend the unpopular 'democratic' government. People didn't understand what was happening. Their opponents were divided and badly unorganized. In the end all resistance was broken by famine and the Red terror!

[This message has been edited by S. Kroeze (edited May 03, 2000).]

[Earthling7]

Unrest and civil war. How does that translate into Civ? here is an idea.

Some cities will revolt, and some military units will turn against the government. They would not need to be linked (btw, I favour the CTP system of civ wide support opposed to city specific). Lets say the capital is happy with the change, some units within it wouldn't be. Those units would be places outside the city, with the happy units remaining inside. The unhappy units could then try to capture the city.
Similarily, if a city is unhappy and revolts, some units may be more sympathetic, so they will be kicked out. You as a player would then be able to use them to try to recapture the city and force it under your rule.

I think this would create a real atmosphere of a messy civil war.

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[general_charles]

I think some of the stuff here is good, but not all. The way to pass from despotism to monarchy without civil war and from repuclic to democracy is good, bu the others... I mean, from fundamentalism to democracy without unrest??? Do you think it is that easy??? Do you think that all people like democracy (I personally do not)??? The 2 governments above are OK because they have no dramatic differences, but the others are fundamentally different, especially communism and democracy, and communism and fascism... I think that there must be a revolution if we change governments that are different, but maybe the size of the revolution will depend from which government you are coming from and to which you are going...

Despotism --> Monarchy 0% chance
Monarchy --> Communism + 90% change
Republic --> Democracy 0% chance
Democracy --> Republic 20% chance
Democracy --> Communism 100% chance
Democracy --> Monarchy 100% chance
Democracy --> Fascism 10% chance
Republic --> Communism 90% chance
Republic --> Monarchy 80% chance
Republic --> Democracy 50% chance
Republic --> Fascism 20% chance
Fascism --> anything 100% chance
Communism --> anything 100% chance

Going from fascism and communism to anything would provoque unrest and revolution, they are totally different from pther governments, but it is quite easy to go from democracy to fascism (see pre war Germany, Hitler came to power through no protest).


------------------
-- Capitalism slaughterer --

[mwaf]

quote: Originally posted by DanM on 04-25-2000 11:00 PM ....lets say for example,3 cities on another island,decided not to go in the direction you chose and these 3 cities form their own nation independent of you.

These 3 cities should most likely be cities captured (formerly belonged to some other civ) ones that would join their former country or if these cities would be captured from several different civs they would, as you said, form an own nation.

Maybe if cities that are colonies would try to get other civs colonies (in the same region of course) also to revolt and join them in a new independent nation.

[general_charles]

I think that civil war and revolutions are very important aspects of history, and they are not that well managed by civ2. I think that there should be at least another attribute to the cities, which says from which civ they originally come from and what percentage of the population prefers the other civ's rule to the new one. This could be very important, and the civs that acheive a certain percentage of their population in favor of joining another or forming their own nations, they should revolt against their old governmnet (eg. USA vs. Britain).
But another sort of civil war should be when the government type changes, it should create two sides, one with the old government and one with the new one. Of course, if the old one was not popular, there could be none of the cities remaining with it (eg. American civil war)
The last type of civil war would occur when an enemy captures your capital, it would create large unrest and some cities might just join the conquering country while others just stay with the old government and establish a palace elsewhere (eg. France when conquered by the Nazis had a second government, the Vichy government)

"Fundamentalism is a governing system whose laws and doctrines are rooted in the extremist and controversial views of religion. Fundamentalists believe in the absolute truth and infallibility of their religion, accepting nothing short of a literal interpretation of the scriptures of their faith. Their views are sometimes so radical as to put them at odds with even the most devout traditionalists of the religion in question. Fundamentalist movements have appeared from time to time throughout the world, including a widespread movement of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. in the early 20th century. In some cases, most notably in areas of the Middle East, these movements are so widespread that entire nations fall under Fundamentalist rule. Such governments, backed by a fanatical military force, can be a serious threat to any country that opposes their radical views."

DanM ~ yes, after reviewing your post I realize what you are saying about Fundamentalism. My only argument would be that if a nation had a clear majority (80% or so) of one religion they would be very accepting towards a fundamentalist regime...the way Iraq's Muslim's feel, or are forced to feel, about Saddam. The kurds and shiite Muslims are more opposed.) I suppose there are many factors that deal with a fundamentalist regime so I like General_charles' idea of the percentage system.
" In a communist society, labor is shared equally as well, and the benefits of labor are distributed according to need. Under such a system, all people would be equal, without class stratification."

S. Kroeze ~ The majority of Russia (being serfs) supported Communism because (in theory) it was supposed to take them away from their laboring for lords. I don't see why the peasants didn't originally go along with the new regime. Tell me more...

Earthling7 ~ I agree that some units should be "loyalists" and some should be "revolutionaries". But I feel that the capital should never be taken by the new civ during a civil war (unless captured during the war) but not right away...

General_charles ~ I like your thinking about the percentage chance rule. I think it would add an element of surprise or fate to the system. Good thinking.

mwaf ~ I agree. Hopefully this will come with some form of ethnicity in cities.

Joker ~ i like the idea of economics influencing politics as well as individualism. Also, not being able to have a revolution in order to declare war. But peace treaties should be much more extensive (I've had civs make peace and declare war the next turn 5 to 6 turns in a row, with Nuke's and my Senate overrides my decision to decline the treaty!)

general_charles again ~ As listed before, I like the idea of having ethnicity. Also, to add to your idea of revolting cities, large empires should easily revolt to form new civs (with a certain amount of corruption and unrest in cities). I don't see why democracies don't have corruption. They should be one of the most corrupt. Consider the colombian or mexican drug cartels. Both countries are democratic and the corruption is unbelievable. More than 60% of colombian GNP is from Illegal drug trafficing. Ok, that's about it for now. Happy posting!


------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-03-2000 04:10 PM General_charles ~ I like your thinking about the percentage chance rule. I think it would add an element of surprise or fate to the system. Good thinking.

Hmmmm....
not that it matters,but if you check my original post at the beginning of this thread,you might notice the words "percentage chance"
I certainly am not one to toot my own horn,because this is not a contest.(I'm just genuinely happy that others are thinking about this topic because it would really add alot to the game).Anyways,I didn't display things so well like General_charles did with his chart.In case you haven't noticed,I like charts because they present ideas in such a clear and straight-forward manner.

But,I have to admit,The Jokers idea(which brings us full circle on this thread)about having a bar which shows the mood of the people on a scale from 1 to 100 is an idea which could greatly enhance the realism of the game.The question now is this;
Are the gurus who are making the game going to take the simplistic route again,or are they looking to do a more complex model-and if so,how complex?I for one am in dire need for some feedback.


[This message has been edited by DanM (edited May 03, 2000).]

[markusf]

Cival war is a good idea for a single player game, but if that happened to me in Multiplayer game i would be pretty pissed. I would probably just quit the game and so would most other players i know if they lost half their empires.

[The Joker]

Things are never this simple.

I hope that you all agree on having SMAC SE replacing Civ2 gov types. The SE is superior in all ways. The gov changes you have written here should therefor not be in the game. Democratic as well as oligarcic and despotic communism AND capitalism plus all other economic choises should be possible. There should be no swich from democracy to communism, but rather an economic switch from capitalism to communism and a gov swich from democracy to oligarcy.

If you are interested you should read some of the SE models in the List v2.0 (mine, perhabs?). They all describe how complex an SE model in Civ3 could be made.

I do not think that some SE changes should always nor never make the people revolt or riot. As I wrote before I think that the people should have an agenda, so they have some prefered choises. The best way this could be done (or at least that's what I think) is with having a bar, going from 0 to 100%, that describes your people. There should be a few of these indicators, that could all be used in both deciding what policy to go by, and what SE shoises to have. The most usefull of these would be the Individualism rating. It would show you how Individualistic your people are. If this value is low then this would have certain effects on your SE settings. For instance, having a Democratic gov type with a low Individualism rating would give a lot of inefficiency (like Russia these days). Having a capitalistic economic setting with a low Invididualism rating would give an economy penalty (as the people would not be individualistic enough to work well in business - also look at Russia today). At the same time there would be no unhappyness for having a nondemocratic gov type.

If, on the other hand your people's Individualism rating was very high there would be much unhappyness with having a nondemocratic gov type (the people want to rule themselves). A capitalistic economic setting would give an economy bonus (as the people were good at trade and such).

There could be other of these indicators (like Militarism), but I think the Individualism would be the most important one.

The ratings would not at all be static. They would be changed by things that happened (a destructive war would lower the Militarism rating) and by things you did - choosing democracy or capitalism or such should highten your people's Individualism rating over time. You should also be able to use money on propaganda, with which you should be able to slowly move your people's ratings to where you wanted them.

After all, although the american people would revolt if the gov type was suddently changed to fundamentalism, if the leaders of the country bombarded them with profundamentalist propaganda for 40 years, the change from democracy to fundamentalism would pass by without any trouple at all.

I think having all these things included in Civ3 should not make it impossible to make SE changes, but should make them take longer and require more plannning. You shouldn't just be able to switch to a more warlike SE setting if you suddently were in a war. I think that you should be forced to try to find the chance of you being sent into war (this should be easier done in Civ3 compared to SMAC due to a better AI and better alliances, economic independance etc) and then choose what SE setting were best for you.

[Adm.Naismith]

markusf, you wrote

quote: Cival war is a good idea for a single player game, but if that happened to me in Multiplayer game i would be pretty pissed.

I ask to you: Why?

As long as the Civil war happens because of your game decision (e.g. you switch to unpopular government by bad s.e. choice) or heavy external influence (e.g. enemy propaganda) and not by stupid random events I think you must accept it as your fault, like trying to attack a battleship with a trireme and not be surprised by poor results.

DanM, I like the "CIVers" concept, the "social agenda", a form of S.E. advanced from SMAC one. About your idea

quote: Are the gurus who are making the game going to take the simplistic route again,or are they looking to do a more complex model-and if so,how complex?

my only fear is about the learning curve it will be needed to enjoy this advanced feature. I had some problem to master the (simple) SMAC SE, I can't imagine how a nightmare could be our CIV 3 proposal!

So, IMHO a better model is needed, but it should let the newcomer player to learn step by step at the easy levels, not screw up the whole game because of a misunderstand of an SE choice.


------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[general_charles]

I'm sorry that DanM feels like I have taken some of credits, it is true that I was largely inspired by your chart but if you look in other threads where I have posted messages, you will see that I had these ideas from a long time... Besides, to tell you the truth, I love history, and I like to use historical facts to back up my civ 3 ideas... Besides, I like politics as well, and I know the roots of a lot of systems, especially the ones in the modern era. This is how I based my percentage, and I explained it even more in the second post, to be sure that it was clear.
Anyway, the systems that were expressed above were good, but I'd like to say what seemed not so good to me:
Monarchy --> Communism + (no unrest)
It has already been said why
Democracy --> Republic (unrest)
The principle of the Republic is an elite governing, instead of the noble men and the king, it was now the people that had money, what person that beleives in democracy would allow this?
Anything --> Fundamentalism (no unrest)
Come on
Fundamentalism --> Republic or less (unrest)
If the system was popular but somehow a revolution occured, there would be unrest

PS

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-03-2000 08:17 AM Republic --> Communism 90% chance Republic --> Monarchy 80% chance Republic --> Democracy 50% chance Republic --> Fascism 20% chance Fascism --> anything 100% chance Communism --> anything 100% chance

I don't know why this line is here.

[general_charles]

One more thing, I'd like to know why all of you refer to tyranny and communism as the same???

------------------
-- Capitalism slaughterer --

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-04-2000 10:03 AM Democracy --> Republic (unrest) The principle of the Republic is an elite governing, instead of the noble men and the king, it was now the people that had money, what person that beleives in democracy would allow this?

I see your point. But I don't see the idea of overthrow. Maybe just a long period of unrest.

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-04-2000 10:03 AM Anything --> Fundamentalism (no unrest) Come on

I think under the circumstances people would love a Fundy system. Definitely not in America. But in Iraq - Hell yah! Especially with all the hatred towards Israel and Shiite Muslims. Religion has to be a factor.

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-04-2000 10:03 AM Fundamentalism --> Republic or less (unrest) If the system was popular but somehow a revolution occured, there would be unrest Reread this, I think either... 1) you meant to say "wouldn't" be unrest or 2) you misread the original statement.

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-04-2000 10:03 AM Democracy --> Republic (unrest) The principle of the Republic is an elite governing, instead of the noble men and the king, it was now the people that had money, what person that beleives in democracy would allow this?

I see your point. But I don't see the idea of overthrow. And who says just because they're under Democracy that they believe in it. If it's a very well educated, small country they may welcome a republic to keep the "stupid" people out of the process.

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-04-2000 10:03 AM Anything --> Fundamentalism (no unrest) Come on

I think under certain circumstances people would love a Fundy system. Definitely not in America where diversity is huge. But in Iraq - Hell yah! Especially with all the hatred towards Israel and Shiite Muslims. I guess Religion has to be a factor.

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-04-2000 10:03 AM Fundamentalism --> Republic or less (unrest) If the system was popular but somehow a revolution occured, there would be unrest

Reread this, I think either...
1) you meant to say "wouldn't" be unrest or
2) you misread the original statement.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 04, 2000).]

[general_charles]

quote: Fundamentalism --> Republic or less (unrest) If the system was popular but somehow a revolution occured, there would be unrest

I misexpressed myself, I meant to say that if the fundamentalist system was overthrown even though the people liked it, they would be unhappy with the new system and there would probably be no revolution.

quote: I think under certain circumstances people would love a Fundy system. Definitely not in America where diversity is huge. But in Iraq - Hell yah! Especially with all the hatred towards Israel and Shiite Muslims. I guess Religion has to be a factor.

I do agree with you, I'm not questionning wether Iraqi people like the fundamentalit system or not, I'm only saying that when it was set up (I have no idea when, or was it after the last British troops withdrew?), there probably was some unrest. The subject of this thread is no whether people like the system but more what happens when you change it...

Yah, I see your point. I didn't really say anything about the change to a Fundy system...just that some people support it. I guess the Iraqi situation has two variables (change in System and change in who ruled Iraq) so it can't be determined what caused the unrest.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 05-04-2000 06:25 AM my only fear is about the learning curve it will be needed to enjoy this advanced feature. I had some problem to master the (simple) SMAC SE, I can't imagine how a nightmare could be our CIV 3 proposal!

First of all,I loved the SE in Alpha Centauri.And I enjoyed it.But learning and mastering are two distinctly different things to me.The different combinations that could be used in SMAC only increased the replay value for me.I don't want to master a game real fast because then I will do the same thing over and over and over again because it works.SMAC had those combos and I liked that,and that made it more difficult to do the same thing repeatedly every game.
I wouldn't be upset if they used a variation of it for Civ3(although why not do something original instead?).
But I must say,if Civ3 doesn't incorporate a more complex model which bar-graphs the mood of the people,a future version will because it is simply more realistic.They are increasing the realism in this version compared to the last,and the trend for more realism will,I am sure,continue.
People are smart,they can learn.And if done properly,a more complex system can still be fun.
Maybe some ideas are just ahead of their time...

[This message has been edited by DanM (edited May 06, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

And again some information about the Russian/Bolshevik Revolution:

First of all I will recommend two excellent studies about the Revolution and the period of the civil war:
-R.Pipes: 'The Russian Revolution',1991
(this study concentrates on the causes of the revolution, starting in 1899 it describes events until the end of 1918 when the Red Terror became daily grind)

-R.Pipes: 'Russia under the Bolshevik Regime',1995
(this study starts with the civil war in 1918 and continues till the death of Lenin in 1924)

Then I would like to point out that the serfs were liberated in 1861 in the reign of the 'liberal' Alexander II(1855-1881), one of the more able Russian monarchs though not a strong personality, during the period of the so-called Great Reforms. The peasants became personally free at once, without any payment, and his landlord was obliged to grant him his plot for a fixed rent with the possibility of redeeming it at a price to be mutually agreed upon. If the peasant desired to redeem his plot, the government paid at once to the landowner the whole price, which the peasant had to repay to the exchequer in 49 years. By 1880 only 15% of the peasants had not made use of the redemption scheme, and in 1881 it was declared obligatory. The landowners tried, but in vain, to keep their power in local administration. The liberated peasants were organized in village communities governed by elected elders.

The following citations do come all from the books of Pipes.

'There exists a widespread impression that before 1917 Russia was a "feudal" country in which the Imperial Court, the Church, and a small minority of wealthy nobles owned the bulk of the land, while the peasants either cultivated minuscule plots or worked as tenant farmers. This condition is believed to have been a prime cause of the Revolution. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth: the image derives from conditions in pre-1789 France, where, indeed, the vast majority of peasants tilled the land of otheres. It was in such Western countries as England, Ireland, Spain, and Italy (all of which happened to avoid revolution) that ownership of agricultural land was concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, sometimes to an extreme degree. Russia, by contrast, was a classic land of small peasant cultivators. Latifundia here existed primarily in the borderlands, in regions taken from Poland and Sweden. At the time of their Emancipation, the ex-serfs received approximately one-half of the land which they had previously tilled. In the decades that followed, with the help of the Land Bank, which offered them credit on easy terms, they bought additional properties, mainly from landlords. By 1905, peasant cultivators owned, either communally or privately, 61.8 percent of the land in private possession in Russia. As we shall see, after the Revolution of 1905 the exodus of non-peasant landowners from the countryside accelerated, and in 1916, on the eve of the Revolution, peasant cultivators in European Russia owned nine-tenths of the arable land.'

'In the winter of 1917-1918, the population of what had been the Russian Empire divided among itself not only material goods. It also tore apart the Russian state, the product of 600 years of historical development: sovereignty itself became the object of duvan. By the spring of 1918, the largest state in the world fell apart into innumerable overlapping entities, large and small, each claiming authority over its territory, none linked with the others by institutional ties or even a sense of common destiny. In a few months, Russia reverted politically to the early Middle Ages when she had been a collection of self-governing principalities.

The first to separate themselves were the non-Russian peoples of the borderlands. After the Bolshevik coup, one ethnic minority after another declared independence from Russia, partly to realize its national aspirations, partly to escape Bolshevism and the looming civil war. For justification they could refer to the "Declaration of the Rights of the Nations of Russia", which the Bolsheviks had issued on November 2, 1917, over the signatures of Lenin and Stalin. Made public without prior approval of any Soviet institution, it granted the peoples of Russia "free self-determination, including the right of separation and the formation of an independent state." Finland was the first to declare herself independent (December 6, 1917, NS); she was followed by Lithuania (December 11), Latvia (January 12, 1918), the Ukraine (January 22), Estonia (February 24), Transcaucasia (April 22), and Poland (November 3) (all dates are new style). These separations reduced the Communist domain to territories inhabited by Great Russians -that is, to the Russia of the mid-seventeenth century.'

'The Germans found the Bolsheviks serving their purposes and propped them whenever they ran into trouble; the Allies were busy fighting for their lives. The question posed by one historian -"How ...did the Soviet government, bereft of significant military force in the midst of what was until then mankind's most destructive war, succeed in surviving the first year of the revolution?"- answers itself: this most destructive war completely overshadowed Russian events. The Germans supported the Bolshevik regime; the Allies had other concerns.'

'Under War Communism, the Russian "proletariat" fell by one-half, industrial output by three-quarters, and industrial productivity by 70 percent. Surveying the wreckage, Lenin in 1921 exclaimed: "What is the proletariat? It is the class engaged in large-scale industry. And where is large-scale industry? What kind of a proletariat is it? Where is your [sic!] industry? Why is it idle?" The answer to these rhetorical questions was that utopian programs, which Lenin had approved, had all but destroyed Russian industry and decimated Russia's working class. But during this time of deindustrialization, the expenses of maintaining the bureaucracy in charge of the economy grew by leaps and bounds: by 1921 they absorbed 75.1 percent of the budget. As for the personnel of the Supreme Economic Council, which managed Russia's industry, it grew during this period a hundredfold.

The Bolshevik Government treated the peasant population as a class enemy and waged on it a regular war by means of Red Army units and detachments of armed thugs. The program of 1918 -to choke off all private trade in agricultural produce- had to be modified in view of fierce peasant resistance. In 1919 and 1920, the government extracted food from the peasantry by a variety of means: forced deliveries, barter of food for manufactured goods, and purchases at somewhat more realistic prices. In 1919, it allowed limited quantities of food to be sold on the open market. Dairy products, meats, fruits, most vegetables, and all foodstuffs growing wild were initially exempt from state control but later regulated as well.

Through a combination of coercion and inducement, the government managed somehow to feed the cities and industrial centers, not to speak of the Red Army. But the prospects for the future looked bleak because the peasant, having no incentives to grow more than he needed for himself, kept on reducing the cultivated acreage.'

'The Civil War, which tore Russia apart for nearly three years, was the most devastating event in that country's history since the Mongol invasions in the thirteenth century. Unspeakable atrocities were committed from resentment and fear: millions lost their lives in combat as well as from cold, hunger, and disease. As soon as the fighting stopped, Russia was struck by a famine such as no European people had ever experienced, a famine Asian in magnitude, in which millions more perished.

As is true of many terms applied to the Russian Revolution, "Civil War" has more than one meaning. In customary usage it refers to the military conflict between the Red Army and various anti-Communist or "White" armies lasting from December 1917 to November 1920, when the remnant of White forces evacuated Russian territory. Originally, however, "civil war" had a broader meaning. To Lenin it meant the global class conflict between his party, the vanguard of the "proletariat", and the international "bourgeoisie": "class war" in the most comprehensive sense of the term, of which the military conflict was only one dimension. He not only expected civil war to break out immediately after his taking power, but took power in order to unleash it. For him, the October coup d'état would have been a futile adventure if it did not lead to a global class conflict. Ten years before the revolution, analyzing the lessons of the Paris Commune(1871), Lenin agreed with Marx that its collapse was caused by the failure to launch a civil war. From the moment the World War broke out, Lenin denounced pacifistic socialists who called for an end to the fighting. True revolutionaries did not want peace: "This is a slogan of philistines and priests. The proletarian slogan must be: civil war." "Civil War is the expression of revolution....To think that a revolution is possible without civil war is the same as to think it possible to have 'peaceful' revolution," wrote Bukharin and Preobrazhenskii in a widely read manual of Communism. Trotsly put it even more bluntly: "Soviet authority is organized civil war." From such pronouncements it should be evident that the Civil War was not forced on the Communist leaders by the foreign and domestic "bourgeoisie": it lay at the heart of their political program.'

'In 1920 and 1921, the Russian countryside from the Black Sea to the Pacific was the scene of uprisings that in numbers involved and territory affected greatly eclipsed the famous peasant rebellions of Stenka Razin and Pugachev under tsarism. Its true dimensions cannot even now be established, because the relevant materials have not yet been properly studied. The Communist authorities have assiduously minimised its scope: thus, according to the Cheka, in February 1921, there occurred 118 peasant risings. In fact, there were hundreds of such uprisings, involving hundreds of thousands of partisans. Lenin was in receipt of regular reports from this front of the Civil War, which included detailed maps covering the entire country, indicating that vast territories were in rebellion. Occasionally, Communist historians give us a glimpse of the dimensions of this other Civil War, conceding that some "bands" of "kulaks" numbered 50,000 and more rebels. An idea of the extent and savagery of the fighting can be obtained from official figures of the losses suffered by the Red Army units engaged against the rebels. According to recent information, the number of Red Army casualties in the campaign of 1921-22, which were waged almost exclusively against peasants and other domestic rebels, came to 237,908. The losses among the rebels were almost certainly as high and probably much higher.

Russia had known nothing like it, because in the past peasants had traditionally taken up arms against landowners, not against the government. Just as the tsarist authorities had labeled peasant disorders kramola (sedition), so the new authorities called them "banditry". But resistance was not confined to peasants. More dangerous still, even if less violent, was the hostility of industrial labor. The Bolsheviks had already lost most of the suport they had enjoyed among industrial labor in October 1917 by the spring of 1918. While fighting the Whites they had managed, with the active help of the Mensheviks and SRs, to rally the workers by playing on the fear of a monarchist restoration. Once the Whites had been defeated, however, and the danger of a restoration no longer existed, the workers abandoned the Bolsheviks in droves, shifting to every conceivable alternative, from the extreme left to the extreme right. In March 1921, Zinoviev told the delegates to the Tenth Party Congress that the mass of workers and peasants belonged to no party, and a good portion of those who were politically active favored the Mensheviks or the Black Hundreds. Trotsky was so shocked by the suggestion that, as he interpreted it, "one part of the working class muzzles the remaining 99 percent", that he asked that Zinoviev's remarks be struck from the record. But the facts were irrefutable: in 1920-21, except for its own cadres, the Bolshevik regime had the whole country against it, and even the cadres were rebelling. Had not Lenin himself described the Bolsheviks as but a drop of water in the nation's sea? And the sea was raging.'

I hope the general picture of a disintegrating, chaotic Russia becomes clear. The books of Pipes are true gems!

[general_charles]

this is nice and it sure shows that you know a lot about the bolshevik revolution, but how would you put all of this information in civ3????

Thanks for the brief history lesson :-)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-08-2000 05:03 PM Thanks for the brief history lesson :-)

Brief?
Interesting(I love history)
but OUCH!

[Christantine]

I don't think anyone has mentioned that sometimes the army revolts and seperates from the motherland. This has happened many times in history (Not much modern happinings).They might take some cities but not alot. The army would probably then lead a campaign aganst it's former homeland. They wouldn't become barberians which would probably walk away and attack someone else. They would not be a civilization because they lack the social sophistication that a culture would have. I think this should only happen in ancient times though because in the modern world where do you take an army of 20 tanks and "disappear". I think this should only happen under governments that have a ruling party but not under a government that has an iron grip on it's people's throats (communism) or in a government that offers too many freedoms to lose (Democracy, Republic). Well maybe a republic but at a reduced chance than that of a monarchy or a despotism (because of the individual freedom of the people). If the army conquers enough cities (from you or other civs) than they decide to form a new civilization that has a militiristic attitude. (I do not think they should sit down and make a republic though because they what they just did to their homeland is what Caesar did to Rome. Caesar just proclamed himself emperor.) I also think that when the civ is created than it should have a science handycap and they would have to expereience a period of despotism (because the most powerful general is still in charge) and then move on to monarchy. This transition should take a while.

------------------
I came, I saw, I conquered...my allies!!