Should the renaissance be made more dynamic? I argue that it would allow those who play non-traditional games, or those who play CK2 -> EU4, to experience an interesting variation in history.
Currently the renaissance starts in Northern Italy, in the wake of rising secularism and open mindedness and a willingness to re-embrace philosophy and science to a greater extent than had been supported by the Catholic Church.
More broadly, you could define this as a rebellion against strict monotheistic religions. You could look at the modern world and the remarkable economic and scientific progress of the Shah's Iran, versus the stagnation and oil reliance of the Mullahs. Strict religions resulted in economic and scientific stagnation, and parts of the Indo-European world that had reclaimed their pre-Islamic traditions should not be hit by a closemindedness malus.
The EU4 timeline begins assuming that Islam rules Iran and India. Classical India, Persia and Rome were roughly on par technologically, economically and militarily, yet Islamic domination in Persia and India led to long periods of stagnation.
In CK2, the player can keep India Hindu, and a Zoroastrian character could, with considerable difficulty, retake Persia.
Therefore, if these conditions, and perhaps others are met (EG. A very high level of development in Taxila (Lahore) or Ctesiphon (Baghdad), correct religion and culture) should the Renaissance begin in Persia and India also? Zoroastarians and Hindus, like the Romans and Greeks, followed relatively open minded polytheistic religions, and so in my opinion they should, under the conditions of having an open minded society at game start (or perhaps even later in the game), not be limited to non-Renaissance birth region status.
Likewise, if Islam rules Europe, then the Renaissance could be stunted or disabled there.
I would certainly appreciate this as a potential option in my games. It would give that element of history real depth and dynamism and give complex and interesting consequences to actions taken in CK2, or even in EU4.
Currently the renaissance starts in Northern Italy, in the wake of rising secularism and open mindedness and a willingness to re-embrace philosophy and science to a greater extent than had been supported by the Catholic Church.
More broadly, you could define this as a rebellion against strict monotheistic religions. You could look at the modern world and the remarkable economic and scientific progress of the Shah's Iran, versus the stagnation and oil reliance of the Mullahs. Strict religions resulted in economic and scientific stagnation, and parts of the Indo-European world that had reclaimed their pre-Islamic traditions should not be hit by a closemindedness malus.
The EU4 timeline begins assuming that Islam rules Iran and India. Classical India, Persia and Rome were roughly on par technologically, economically and militarily, yet Islamic domination in Persia and India led to long periods of stagnation.
In CK2, the player can keep India Hindu, and a Zoroastrian character could, with considerable difficulty, retake Persia.
Therefore, if these conditions, and perhaps others are met (EG. A very high level of development in Taxila (Lahore) or Ctesiphon (Baghdad), correct religion and culture) should the Renaissance begin in Persia and India also? Zoroastarians and Hindus, like the Romans and Greeks, followed relatively open minded polytheistic religions, and so in my opinion they should, under the conditions of having an open minded society at game start (or perhaps even later in the game), not be limited to non-Renaissance birth region status.
Likewise, if Islam rules Europe, then the Renaissance could be stunted or disabled there.
I would certainly appreciate this as a potential option in my games. It would give that element of history real depth and dynamism and give complex and interesting consequences to actions taken in CK2, or even in EU4.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
