Government Types

[Ozymandias]

So what are the real-world correlations to Civ's government types?

(1) What does "Monarchy" really represent above "Despotism" -- was Dark Age Europe with its Roman-derived laws and monarchs really more efficient than early dynastic Egypt? (There were, pre-Hyksos, 14 Egyptian dynasties before their neighbor Hammurabi invented his famous code of laws.) Arguably, "Monarchy" might imply a bureaucratic infrastructure based around the throne, which would, for example, adequately describe the Roman Empire.

(2) "Nationalism" apparently lumps together (I'm guessing) most everything in Europe from Frederick the Great through WWI? It would include both England's constitutional monarchy and Napoleon at his most despotic. So it's really not a "government" type per se but a representation of a certain level of technological and bureaucratic sophistication -- which I think, given the structure of the game, is perfectly reasonable.

(3) What differentiates a "Democracy" from a "Republic"? They're presumably as different from each other as both are from Communism. Clearly, Democracy is more advanced (by virtue of occuring later in the tech tree), but what is the critical difference between the two? -- I would suggest that, in both Plato's and Lincoln's republics, the "equality" of political power was only held by property-owning males of the dominant ethnicity. By this distinction, many of the ancient Greek city-states were indeed republics, and America during World War I was a republic, and is now a democracy. Note that this might suggest that the best game approach to "Democracy" would be to have Suffrage as a minor wonder, every Civ which has discovered the Republic, as well as some later tech (perhaps Radio), might build.

(4) "Communism" -- is this idealized Marxism, or Stalinism / Maoism? Almost certainly the latter. And I note that Civ has always nicely avoided "fascism" as a government type. Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany may both fairly be classified as "Totalitarian", and perhaps Communism should be renamed this. Germany's technological superiority in WW2 would, in game terms, be attributed to possession of more universities and knowledge wonders compensating for the research negatives; for more perspective, we might compare other recent dictatorships (Spain; Italy) to the old USSR and evaluate which was more efficient etc.

(5) "Feudalism" is confusing in game turns -- it is a very particular form of monarchy, where power is extremely decentralized and efficiency of every sort reduced. Feudal Europe was also noteably non-commercial. It should not be a required "advance" for Invention!


So:

(A) Monarchy would require Currency and Literacy/Literature.

(B) Republic would require Currency and Philosophy (Republics are always mercantile in nature) -- and Philosophy would require Literacy. The minor wonder Suffrage would require Philosophy and The Printing Press to build, and would confer significant enough advantage to a Republic to make it "behave" more like Democracy has previously been built in the game.

(C) Nationalism would require Monarchy and Gunpowder.

(D) Communism is renamed "Totalitarianism".

(E) The "advance" Feudalism would be represented by a dead-end spur on the tech tree, not requiring Monarchy, but perhaps Warrior Code and Construction. Note above that "Monarchy" would require "Currency" which was most noteably lacking in Europe from the fall of Rome until the late Middle Ages.

(F) Now for a radical thought: The government type "Democracy" might be renamed "Corporate Republic", and would be a very late 20th Century evolution of the Republic (with or without the Suffrage wonder), wherein the citizen has essentially redefined him/herself as a consumer, globalism is rampant, and national agendas have been largely ceded to large coporations. This would account for the reluctance of "Democracies" in the game to commit military forces, and would nicely illustrate the sense of divide between, oh, say, the WWII generation and the present day. The Corporate Republic would require the Republic and Miniaturization to build.

-Ozymandias

[Swissy]

Originally posted by Ozymandias
"Feudalism" is confusing in game turns -- it is a very particular form of monarchy, where power is extremely decentralized and efficiency of every sort reduced. Feudal Europe was also noteably non-commercial. It should not be a required "advance" for Invention!

You seem confused as to what feudalism is. Feudalism is a highly centralized form of governance. The basis of feudalism is the ruler derives his power from a supreme diety, or is the diety in the case of the Japanese. This gives the ruler a divine right to rule, part of this right is to assign duties to others. To provide a means to preform these duties the overloadship of lands were given. So all land was "owned" by the ruler, the nobles received the right of use from the ruler. So the ruler under feudalism is the center of the country.

As far as feudalism being needed for invention, the centralization of power to the ruler also centralized the wealth of the civ. As rulers became more wealthy, they began to patronize artist and scholars. Out of this patronage you get invention.

[Inverse Icarus]

Feudalism is a highly centralized form of governance

not its not! it's completely the opposite!

feudalism is where kings give local lords rule over an area of land.

those local lords often fought eachother and etc.

it was highly DISORGANIZED.

and anyway, Feudalism isnt a civ 3 gov.

take the civ 2 govts, take out fund. add nationalism/

[red_jon]

In Civ3 isn't 'nationalism' actually fascism? The designers just didn't want to use the dreaded 'f' word.

Also, Ozymandias - the corporate republic is a good idea (I liked it in CTP and CTP2), but if 'Republic' replaces democracy, where would that leave constitutional monarchies (like Britain)?

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by red_jon
In Civ3 isn't 'nationalism' actually fascism? The designers just didn't want to use the dreaded 'f' word.

Also, Ozymandias - the corporate republic is a good idea (I liked it in CTP and CTP2), but if 'Republic' replaces democracy, where would that leave constitutional monarchies (like Britain)?

I believe that, given the level of abstraction necessary for a game of Civilization's scope, that any two things which are, in game terms, structurally the same might as well be handled in the same fashion.

In the case of Britain, pre-Magna Carta would be a Despotism, Magna Carta through the Civil War would be a Monarchy, post-Cromwell would be Nationalist (which, again, I think represents the ability to organize resources with the same degree of efficiency as other Nations, irrespective of their precise governmental construction -- I presume the Union during the American Civil War would, in game terms, likewise be a Nation, as would Bismarck's Germany) and, contemporarily, British constitutional monarchy functions, in game terms, exactly as I am describing/defining a Republic with a Suffrage wonder. Only contemporary America is falling, er, advancing, into Corporate Republicanism, which nearly every other nation on earth seems to be resisting.

All the Best,

Ozymandius

[red_jon]

Oz, Cromwell's rule was closest to Civ2's 'fundamentalism' (the English title for the gov in civ2 was 'Lord Protector' which is what he was called).

Unfortunately, Western Europe (esp. the UK) seems to be descending into the Corporate Republic.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by red_jon
Oz, Cromwell's rule was closest to Civ2's 'fundamentalism' (the English title for the gov in civ2 was 'Lord Protector' which is what he was called).

Unfortunately, Western Europe (esp. the UK) seems to be descending into the Corporate Republic.

Re: Cromwell -- granted, but, given some of the near-hysterical nationalism on some of the threads, I didn't want to risk offense.

Re: Western Europe, I have my fears and hopes on that front ... Irrespective, it would seem that we are agreeing on the "Corporate Republic" being a contemporary and ongoing phenomenon, and not a "future" or "sepculative" or "science fiction" gov. This is important as many posts seem specifically to deride any such speculation.

Time-travelling along with everyone else into the future at the awesome rate of 1 second per second,

Oz

[Andreiguy]

(3) What differentiates a "Democracy" from a "Republic"? They're presumably as different from each other as both are from Communism. Clearly, Democracy is more advanced (by virtue of occuring later in the tech tree), but what is the critical difference between the two? -- I would suggest that, in both Plato's and Lincoln's republics, the "equality" of political power was only held by property-owning males of the dominant ethnicity. By this distinction, many of the ancient Greek city-states were indeed republics, and America during World War I was a republic, and is now a democracy. Note that this might suggest that the best game approach to "Democracy" would be to have Suffrage as a minor wonder, every Civ which has discovered the Republic, as well as some later tech (perhaps Radio), might build.

A democracy is a government in which any person could walk into Congress and give an idea for a new bill. Ancient Athens was a democracy; anyone was allowed to participate in government sessions of the Senate, however, they had to be free land-owning males. The United States always was and is a republic. Just any person can't help govern. Intead, we are represented by our Representatives in the House, and the Senate. So, our country is democratic , but it is not a democracy. Democracy should become obsolete as soon as your civilization reaches a population of x, in my opinion, because after a certain point it would become hopelessly ineffecient and anarchatic. Therefore, a republic is actually MORE "advanced" than a democracy.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Andreiguy


Ancient Athens was a democracy; anyone was allowed to participate in government sessions of the Senate, however, they had to be free land-owning males.

Interesting. So you're defining a "democracy" as direct voting on policy etc. and a "republic" as a "representative" process (as an aside, if I recall correctly, U.S. Senators were appointed until well into the 19th century).

Rather than use "republic" and "democracy", let's use "earlier" and "later".

We both acknowledge that "earlier" has less than universal participation. If I read you correctly, "later" (e.g., ante-bellum America) can ALSO have limited participation in governance, and the difference between the two is a technology issue, a threshhold of population size too large to have each person vote on every issue -- especially as the number of issues presumably grow along with population size (although I'm personally skeptical, the internet may yet bring back your definition of democracy).

This, however, is true of any form of governance at different technology levels. For example, if the Incas are limited to communication by foot in the mountains, the ability of the central government to respond to crises beyond a certain distance becomes impossible, and there are similar limitations with every other mode of communication over distance until the invention of the radio (recall the Battle of New Orleans being fought after a peace treaty was signed). Although I find your approach intellectually appealling, I think it would be impossible to reflect in the game's mechanics (actually, a simple rule could address it: how far a unit can move from a city would be determined by technology level, but I somehow doubt the scenario engine will support this).

Using my suggestion, with "earlier" comprising (as we agree) limited participation and "later" (as I suggest) being universal enfranchisement, we have a real explanation for the far greater productive output of the later form of governance: more people with more ideas competing with one another. Also note that rigidly stratified societies are uniformly conservative, as (and the pre-WW1 Austro-Hungarian empire comes to mind) any change (any inventiveness) can only be detrimental to the existing social power structure.

Best,

Oz

[kolpo]

There is an escential difference between democratic republics(like modern France and USA ) and parlemential dempcracies(like Sweden, England. This is the most used version of democracy)

The difference is:

In a democractic republic has the president a veto power, can't the congress vote the president away and has the presidebnt the last word in militairy descisions.

In parlemential democracies has the prime miniter or king no real veto power(sometimes has the king offically veto power but every one knows that the parlement will remove the king if he does that and by this also remove his veto),can the parlement vote the prime miminster(or even all ministers at once) or the king away and has the minister of defence(and often needs he also the support of the parlement and/or all ministers) the last word in military decision).

So i'm against renaming democracy with anything that contains republic by calling it democracy are both democractic republics and parlemential democracies included.

Als the coperate republic idea is not completely true:

-globlization doesn't mean that corporations get more power. In E.U. one of the symbols of globlization have they voted many laws who restric companies and reduce there power and because they do it on a global level have they on this way more power over those companies. Examples are: ban on cigarret advertisement, Kyoto protool(they where even able to convert other nations to do the same this is a sign of the raising power of the EU), nitrate polution regulations, ban on genetic manupilated food, ban on hormones in cattle, an anti trust minister in the EU commision, ...

-Since 1968 has the power of green and other progressive movements in Europe heavily increased. Quite all those movements wants to reduce the power of corporations and unethical government.

-Consumers have become more sensible about wathever the way thinsg are produced are ethical: Nike raised income of asian workers because of that, Shell improved work conditions and income of nicuragian workers(after a consumers boycot in Europe).

I don't know enough about USA to judge wathever they are going to a coperate republic but if they do can we conclude that EU and USA are going on completely different ways and maybe is that the real raison why the relations are not that good anymore between them, or maybe is it just the current president and will they improve again if a democrat(I mean a member of the democratic party with this) wins the next elections.

[kolpo]

Ancient Athens was a democracy

Many people wheren't allowed to vote in Greece: Slaves, poor people, womans,...

So it is a myth that Greece was a democracy just as it is a myth that Rome was a democratic republic they where maybe something that looked from far away a little bit like democracy but they where certainly not completely democratic. When where the brit's or the galians ever allowed to vote for the Roman president?

[Mannamagnus]

At least we all agree that the US are not a democracy!

[Inverse Icarus]

don't even get me started on the rights here in the states.

my first amendment is disappearing faster than i can speak.

[Mannamagnus]

Try this UberKrux: Grab a spade, run outside and dig a nice and deep hole. If you strike oil your rights are ensured plus as a bonus you get to pay less tax and the government will invest a s**tload of money in you.

[M. le Comte]

I know it's a bit "strong", but here are the definitions of all that terms which are, to mind mind, used in a wrong way in Civilization.

Anrachy is a none-government system, where in theory nobody own the power. (An -> No ; Archia -> Government system). However nowadays, anarchist partys say they would like a Government based on a pyrammidal federative system. People belong to local gatherings who vote for someone. This representant does not represent them, but belong to a regional gathering and try to defend what has been voted in the local gathering in front of the other "not-representant". This regional gathering vote for someone which goes in a higher gathering and so on.
So anarchy in Civilization looks like more to a general strike or a Revolution than to Anarchy.

There are three kinds of despotism. The first kind takes place in the ancient ages. It was just a victorious general which only power was to make war and justice, because there was no administration (early kings in Europe, roman Emperors). It's also called "Thymocratia" by Platon (the government of the glorious one). The second sort is the modern one, which took place in the late XVIIIth century in Europe, and was called "enlighted despotism". It was a form of Absolutism, with a centralized administration and an "educated" all-mighty king (Catherine II of Russia, Frederic II of Prusse). It was shown as an alternative system to the development of the idea of Nation (and so modern Republic). The last kind is depicted by modern dictators (Franco in Spain, Salazar for Portuguese). It's a general (or a colonel...) which has taken power (made a putsh).

Monarchy is just a system where one personne leads a state alone, because of its birthrights, and for its whole life (Mono -> one's - Archia -> Government system). So it goes from hereditary Despotism to enlighted Despotism and constitutional monarchy (even if then the king has no power). One of the most famous form of Monarchy was Absolutism, in which the king benefited of a centralized administration, saying God had given him his power, but ruling his country without Reason (Louis XIV of France).

Republic is a system where the leader has no birthright, and doesn't rule during his whole life. It can be a democraty or a dictatorial system, fundamentalistic in the cas of the english "Lord Protector)". It's not a real government system, because it's, has monarchia, a non-sense.

Feudalism is the decomposition of ancient Despotism and republic. Middle age in western Europe

Fundamentalism is the government of the religious institution.

Both faschism and communism are totalitarian systems. But they are not based on the same production system (collective vs capitalist).

I know I'm abit too long. But what I would propose if I you're still reading me would be :

General strike/revolution -> riot in most of your cities.

Thymocraty -> despotism in Civ I&II

Republic -> greek republic, with uncompleted freedom and equality

Feudalism -> less centralized power, but possibility to build huge Empires (as the first german one)

Absolutism -> monarchy in Civ I&II

Enlighted despotism -> advanced monarchy

Constitutionalism/democracy -> modern democracies including monarchies such as the english one

Faschism -> Mussolini's system + conservative dictatures (Franco...)

Communism -> Stalin or Mao's system

Anarchy -> Proudhon's system, invented in the middle of the XIXth

Fundamentalism -> Taliban's system

Corporative republic -> ultra liberal democraty where corporations govern (perhaps US soon ?)

That's all folks !!!

[monkspider]

I find it interesting that in civ terms we assume communism immediately translates as Stalinist totalitarinism. Frankly, whenever I used Communism in the game I had just assumed it was a true marxist state after maybe the first 20 years or so of existance.
Perhaps there should be two different types of governments existing in the game?
Marxism and Totalitarinism?
Marxism, could be an advanced government not appearing until late in the game (assuming the difficulty in pulling off a true Marxist society).
Totalitarinism could represent the facist and Stalinist governments of the 1930's, as well as general totalitarian police states in general.

[Mannamagnus]

It's a leftover from the cold war.
The Soviet Union has never been a real communist state nor has China. Had the US helped in stead of agitated Cuba could have been the first communist state.

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by monkspider
Marxism, could be an advanced government not appearing until late in the game (assuming the difficulty in pulling off a true Marxist society).
Totalitarinism could represent the facist and Stalinist governments of the 1930's, as well as general totalitarian police states in general.

Almost perfect, but...
I agree with you when you say (or write) that true communism has never been reached. In a true marxist communist society, no place for State, because the State is always a tool in the hand of the dominant class. So proletarian dictature is, according to Marx, just a way to crush capitalist dictature. The proletarian dictature must have only one goal: the destruction of State. If not, it would just be replacing a dictature by another...
But let's stop talking about political philosophy.

Perhaps could this difference be implemented as True communism/Anarchy government (if you don't understand why I'm talking about anarchy, read my last reply in that thread). It would be an interesting ideologic alternative to liberal democracy as the ultimate form of government. Instead of commercial and industrial efficiency with Democracy, make your people reach unexpected level of happiness...

But, no offense to the American that will read that, there's just a little problem with that: I don't think a game designed to be release in America could include Communism as a potentialy good government. Firaxis would oppose itself the risk of not being able to sell its game in the United States.

[M. le Comte]

Just another little element:

You can't put Stalinism and Faschism in the same "totalitarian government". True, they share de same methods to reduce to silence their dissidents... But it's not the same production and economical system at all. It shouldn't have the same consequences on the game to live under faschist rules and under communist rules. At all.
And if you put communism and faschism in the same govt, where do you put dictature such as Franco's one in Spain, Salazar's one in Portugal, the colonel's one in Grece, or Chilian's one etc. ?

[Inverse Icarus]

ther hasn't ever been a real socialist society in the world.

such a society is classless, with the workers calling all the shot's for the nations decisions.

all "communist" countries to date have had a ruler, an almost toltarian ruler, and an "elite" class, almost a mockery of Marx's writings.

[red_jon]

M. le Comte, the Corporate Republic isn't really democratic. You can't vote for the CEO of a corporation...

[sekong]

About the neccessary of Feudalism, I just have a new idea related to it:

Inspired by the GreatLeader and Army concept,
I'm think about a Noble rank system in Monarchy.
Here is how it works:
Requirement:
1)CIV under Monarchy.
2)After discovery of Feudalism
3)Special events happen, such as winning of a combat, or even discover a new continent or get goody from hut, etc.
Then the King have the option promote a Noble.

Attribute:
1) There are several level of Noble rank. In the following I'll use 2 as an example:
Earl and DUKE.
-Earl cost 1 gold/turn to mentain, can control up to 2 units. Promote from general unit.
-DUKE cost 2 gold/turn, can control up to 4 units. Promote from Earl.
-Each Noble unit need to be assigned to/supported by a city. (Feudalism
-The city supporting a Noble unit will have higher rate of corruption
-The longer a Noble unit exist, the higher corruption it course.
-Lost of Noble unit should by following:
i) Revolution ( because Noble Unit only exist in Monarchy.
ii) Lost of the city supporting it.
iii) Dead in combat.

Discussion:
Why we want to add this? Because it correspond to the history. Before great leader and Nationlism, there was big wars by
those Noble. Game is more balanced, since Monarchy have its advantage. Game is more interesting. Instead of waiting
for a random promote of Great Leader, you can promote Noble "AT A COST".

I think it will be a good way to prevent "early republic"

[Falconius]

all "communist" countries to date have had a ruler, an almost toltarian ruler, and an "elite" class, almost a mockery of Marx's writings.

It cannot be otherwise, owing to human nature. In any revolution, one group overthrows another. Even with promises of equality for everyone, the new ruling group (or class) feels it necessary to maintain their hold on society and continually works to strengthen its position, at the expense of all others.

As it was put in Animal Farm, "All pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Anyway, regarding how Govs work in Civ II, I always thought it was ridiculous that there was no waste/corruption under Communism, when in reality, the Soviets had very difficult problems with widespread corruption. Civ I was actually more realistic in this aspect, giving Communism some corruption, but making it equal in all cities regardless of proximity to the capital. Hopefully Civ III will return some corruption to the commies.

[Inverse Icarus]

ahhh animal farm.

"no animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets."

[jdlessl]

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Anarchy.

Agree.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Despotism.

Very informative, thank you.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Monarchy.

I'm a little unclear on the difference between the Type II Despotism and Monarchy. The despot is established by military might, the monarch by divine right/hereditary rule; any other significant differences? I'd think we'd lump them all into 3 stages of the Despotism class of governments: Thymocraty (catchy name, by the way, I like it), Monarchy, and Dictatorship. Though why one would need to research Dictatorship is beyond me...

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Republic/Democracy

It takes a high degree of technology (we don't have it today) to make a true Democracy on a large scale, so I'd think that under Civ, Republic and Democracy would be merged into one clever-sounding government; they're pretty similar anyway.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Feudalism

I liked MOO2's system, where Feudalism was a primitive form of a Confederacy; basically a more distributed system than a Monarchy/Despotism. Allows the Head Honcho to control larger amounts of territory ('large' defined in terms of the available communication and transportation technology), but there's a greater chance of revolt by an ambitious outlying Prince.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Fundamentalism is the government of the religious institution.

Not quite. Fundamentalism means there's some document or system of beliefs that are strictly adhered to no matter what. Look at how Americans regard the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A Theocracy is rule by a religious institution, and this by no means implies fundamentalist leanings. Some religions are more flexible and welcoming of the new than others. Fundamentalism is more a modifier of an existing government; it could just as easily apply to a Democracy as Anarchy. Social Engineering could model this kind of thing quite well, but, well, you know.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Both fascism and communism are totalitarian systems. But they are not based on the same production system (collective vs capitalist).

Sort of. Fascism is totalitarian, but 'true' communism is not. Communism applied to the real world does always seem to turn into a brutal Dictatorship, though. Interestingly, nobody knows what you might end up with in a real communist nation since nobody's ever succeeded in establishing one for. Which is why I don't think they should use it. As was pointed out, they use entirely differenct economic models, but then type of government and economic system need not, and should not, be linked. But that way lies SE, and, well, you know.

One thing, though. Fascism seems to me to qualify as a simple Dictatorship with severe racial overtones.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Anarchy -> Proudhon's system, invented in the middle of the XIXth

Sounds interesting, please elaborate.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Fundamentalism -> Taliban's system

See my arguments above. The Taliban is an ultra-Fundamentalist Theocracy. And a brutal one even for that...

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Corporative republic -> ultra liberal democracy where corporations govern (perhaps US soon ?)

If so, they're headed towards it in entirely the worst way (ie, government and corporate powers increasing at the expense of the individual. Best way would be corporate and individual power increasing at the expense of the government). I've always liked Vernor Vinge's descriptions of Anarchy/Corporatism (utopian as opposed to, say, Snowcrash's dystopia). Police and justice services could be done by a corporation just as well as the government (probably better, since in most nations that's a government monopoly and we all know those efficient those end up). Social programs of various types have been done by non-government groups for quite a while. The biggest drawbacks I can think of are the loss of anti-trust actions (it's said that capitalism's biggest enemies are successful capitalists) and monitoring things like environmental regulations (not that they do a particularly good job of it right now anyway), and defending against hostile external governments or groups more powerful than any armed individuals/companies. Obviously not bloody likely in the Real World (TM), but it'd still make for an interesting game of Civ; what position in the world would you as the immortal leader occupy? CEO of the largest company and using your shares you control all the others?

Originally posted by red_jon
the Corporate Republic isn't really democratic. You can't vote for the CEO of a corporation

If you're a shareholder you can.

--
Jared Lessl

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by UberKruX
ther hasn't ever been a real socialist society in the world.

Wrong wrong wrong.

During the XIXth century, several philanthropic bosses in Western Europe have created some small socialist society. I say "socialist", because "the communist party manifest" has been written in 1848 by Marx, and has not been successful, or even known, at once. So communism has Marx and Engels described it did not exist.
Those bosses, who were just capitalist owners, founded small cities in Britain (France) and in Scotland (UK) - it's the two example I can remember. These cities' system were based on a collective and cooperative production and self-administration. They have disappeared when their few creators died, and though they were just local and time-limited systems, they have existed AND worked.

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by red_jon
M. le Comte, the Corporate Republic isn't really democratic. You can't vote for the CEO of a corporation...

That's true. Talking about corporative democraty was an error of language.

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by jdlessl

I'm a little unclear on the difference between the Type II Despotism and Monarchy. The despot is established by military might, the monarch by divine right/hereditary rule; any other significant differences? I'd think we'd lump them all into 3 stages of the Despotism class of governments: Thymocraty (catchy name, by the way, I like it), Monarchy, and Dictatorship. Though why one would need to research Dictatorship is beyond me...

Sorry, that's me who wasn't clear. There's still a difference between type II of despotism and Absolutism.
Only the "type I" of despotism is established by a victorious military (the example of Roman emperors, who were rised to the throne by their soldiers). That's Platon's Thymocraty. But it's not military might. No government can justify its existence by the simple might, although military might has often been a tool for political leaders to maintain order (and in Civ too...). The justication is here military glory. These leaders are used to put their heirs on the throne, but that just a consequence of their charismatic power. Heredity is just a consequence.

Despotism "Type II", enlighted despotism, is a XVIIIth century invention. Some absolutist hereditary leaders (Kings of Prussia, Tsars of Russia, Emperor of Austria) inherit of huge territory badly adminstrated. They had to fight against corruption in administration, unorganized armies, numerous languages among their population. They were philosophy lovers, they liked french philosophs. Voltaire has for a example been for a while the advisor of Frederic II of Prussia. These kings were neither replican, nor democrats, at all. They just wanted the happiness of their people, and the efficiency of their state, and so they governed their empire with rationality and reason, although they were dictators. It was an alternative to what they were fearing: the rising of the idea of Nation and People sovereignty. Louis XV of France tried to transform its government into enlighted despotism but failed, because of the resistance of aristocraty (which would have lost a big part of its might if Louis XV had succeded). There is here too the idea of divine rights, but the leader can make in is mind a difference between him and the state.

Absolutism is an other form of monarchy. It is based on a centralized form of administration, with divine right and hereditary system. It's the system which comes after feudalism, when the kings of Western countries (France and England) succeded in crushing the great warlords' political might during the XVIIth century. But the organization is not so far rationalized. And the leader is not able to make in is mind the difference between him and the state. Louis the XIVth of France is a good illustration of what is an Absolutist leader. He said a very famous sentence "The state, it's me." (L'Etat, c'est moi). It's because absolutist systems have been unable to reform themselves that they have soon been destroyed by Revolutions. In England, during the XVIIth century, and in France, in 1789, revolutions have brought new political and philosophical systems of government, where the People, or at least a part of the People, had the right to choose political orientations of the country.

I'll answer the rest of your reply soon. I just need a cup.

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by jdlessl

Though why one would need to research Dictatorship is beyond me...

I liked MOO2's system, where Feudalism was a primitive form of a Confederacy; basically a more distributed system than a Monarchy/Despotism. Allows the Head Honcho to control larger amounts of territory ('large' defined in terms of the available communication and transportation technology), but there's a greater chance of revolt by an ambitious outlying Prince.

So, to conclude, we would have four different type of monarchy.

- Thymocraty : despotism in Civ I&II.
- Feudalism : as you described it. we could add the fact that commercial efficiency is reduced, because there were very few commercial contacts bedween the different Princes' territories.
- Absolutism : delete the risk of revolt by "outlying Prince", more efficiency for trade
- Enlighted despotism: less corruption, more culture

About dictatorship (not totalitarian), that's a REPUBLICAN type of govt, and not a Monarchy, because hereditary idea doesn't exist.
It's something very modern, a XXth century invention. Franco, Salazars, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and so on are the products of modern technologies. No "dictorship" tech, it would be ridiculous. But this government could be the consequence of Mass Media, "Populism" or "Propaganda".

We have forgotten the type "mix of parlementarism and monarchy", such as:
- the first parlementarist monarchies in England and in France, were the hereditary king had still a part of political might, while the parliament was rising
- the Bonapartist model, in France, where the idea of Nation sovereignty did exist, where the leader (Napoleon) had to respect a Constitution, where plebiscits (half-direct democraty) was a way to question the People on policies, but where the son of the leader would inherit of the power, where the leader was crowned by the Pape, and where the Emperor was all-mighty.

Perhaps could we mix these two kind of systems in a "Republican dictatorship" for simplification ?

So to conclude:

Type of no-government:
Revolution

Types of Monarchy:
Thymocraty
Feudalism
Absolutism
Enlighted despotism

Types of Republics:
Republic (From Athen to Genoa) (Civ I&II Republic)
Republican dictatorship (From Napoleon to Saddam Hussein)(efficiency at war, large empires, bad trade)
Totalitarian Republic (Fascism and Civ I&II communism)
Representative Republic (Democraty in Civ I&II, bud a bit less powerful)
Corporative Republic (see other replies)

Alternative types:
Theocraty (the same as in Civ II)
Anarchy (beginning of the XIXth century) (Huge happiness, very bad production, bad science, bad gold)
Communism (End of the XIXth century) (Happiness, middle sized production, middle sized science, bad gold)
Direct democraty (Happiness, high trade, middle sized production, very hard to make war etc..) (end of the XXth Century, prerequisites: Internet)

[K.J.H.]

Too complex!!!!

All these Tiberian pornocracies, republican infantarchy and co-operative thermo-lesbonisms make my head hurt!!
Just keep it simple.
This is my Idea.

1. Tribal (The Flinstones)
2. Monarchy (civ II despotism AND monarchy) (After discovering Feudalism, you get produce more food and your economy is going the right way.)
3. Theocracy (like the Aztec empire or the Holy Roman Empire. fundamentalism of civ2 without the too strong fanatics. your crusaders are cheaper to maintain and you can build clerics like in CTP.)
4. 'Imperialism' (I know this is nonsense but I mean the monarchies of colonist, huge or wanna-be-huge empires. Persons like German kaizers, Spanish kings, Russian czars and off course Japanese emperors. With an almost excellent military, low happiness, but every thing that could lead to expansion has imperialism. imperialism requires nationalism and magnetism. nationalism should be somewhere in the 16th century (then european civs started to make borders). After discovering the advance 'the enlightment' imperialism get more scientific.
5. Republic (aristocracy with 75% of declaring war)
6. 'Democracy' (more male people can vote (so it isn't really democracy), there is 50% of declaring war and after the minor wonder 'Emancipation Act' (requires socialism) people get more happier, 35% of declaring war and we get the western society nowadays.)
7. Facism (requires Mass Media)
8. Communism (requires Socialism and Facism)