Victoria 3 and the Decline of the West 

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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!

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.

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.

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

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?

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

"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.

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.

I got here by randomly searching "Victoria 3" in the RU-vid search bar lmao.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

this channel is a perfect mix of everything i like.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

i must say i like the scramble of africa how it is presented by some vic2 mods the best, because the rid Africa from the empty state in vic2, while still having the micromanaging aspect of having to conquer these nations or having to go through a longterm diplomatic strategy to first sphere them and then having to wait for the event to make them a protectorate pop up. Really gives you the feel of a race against your rivals, while the effort of colonizing becomes more than just a click, just like in real history, where it wasn't sure that easy to conquer the whole of africa.

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.

This channel is exactly my cup of tea. Excited to watch the rest of your content!

look. they wuz not kangz.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?)

took me an hour to digest this video, great work man

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

This is everything I love in one video. Maps, games, history and philosophy. Subscribed.

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

You really thought we wouldn't notice the AOE music :) Great vid thanks!

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.

Conquering states is a million times faster than colonization in vik3, if there were no states then it would be basically impossible to conquer all of Africa

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

Africa was populated with states back in EU3. In fact, playing as an African state, you'd be encouraged to develop and "colonize" nearby "stateless" provinces earlier than the Europeans would arrive. And, when they would, to Westernize your tech by going through painful reforms.

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.

More VIC3 Content please, I love your deep format and incorporating academia into the discussion of a game, keep up the great work!

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

1:00 the reason it is empty is because Europe is where new and casual players want to play

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.

So glad that I found your channel - keep up the great work!

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

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.

Me: "Hmm, I am skeptical..." Me when the Age of Empire 2 soundtrack drops: "This man makes a compelling argument!"

Truly excellent video - had to subscribe for more - and your interpretation of Spengler and mixing it with Vicky 3 is great. More please.

I kind of liked the old map better in some ways. I agree that is was generally way too empty with a lot of the real countries, but a lot of the inner area didn’t really have “states” did they?

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.

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.

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.

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

Awesome video! Superb production value, I hope you keep making these!

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

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.

I've never noticed because literally everyone plays HPM

I'm not sure Spengler was saying that his theory is on the same level as Copernicus. He makes a big deal out of the "ptolemaic" versus the "copernican" view of history. I.e., the ptolemaic view being history revolves around Western Europe/the West whereas in the copernican view he's more saying that no one of his civilisations that he defines are any more central to world-history than the others.

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.

“I’m the future, all contents will be randomly generated by AI.”

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

Great video Great work 👌

Random tribes shouldn't be countries

if we analise mircea elliade we can understand that every culture tends to promote some sort of projection of where the center of the world is, for china and its neighboring countries china was the middle of the world, or for christianity jerusalem was the middle, in the age of discovery: europe, for the mayans and astecs they lived in the middle of the world, we can also perceive it in religious doctrines such as buddhism (we exist in a realm betwenn the gods and the lower levels of existence) or the north pagans (midgard). So it is important to understand that since we(west societies and countries) exist as extension to european adventures across the world our point of view, our center of the world, will not be china, will not be benin or the andes peaks. it would be interesting to see these non "central" countries have a rethoric about the europeans as barbarians (such as the example of japanese folks perceiving the barbarians of the south/europeans) another interesting read is Carl Schimidt (tho he is quite polemic) in his book the nomos of the earth he explore the transition of european concept of law and state toward the land and sea throughout history. for example: one thing he mentions is the christian myth of the kathekon on which legitimized, on early medieval europe, the existence of christian states and denied legitimacy to any non christian states. these ideas can light how society, culture, etc. sees itself as the center of legitimacy, for example: of course the americas were discovered, they exist as extension to european exploration and not native american states, the discovery of america for the european world/west does not deny war, oppression, conquest, etc. but we must differentiate what the perceiving of phenoumena and phenoumena is: the expansion of european influence exists paralel to native population perceptions. the discovery of america or the partition of africa does not deny these native populations of their personal interpretations. In the end, it would be nice to see a african country organizing itself and going for its own colonial conquest in europe or in the americas, Or some native uprising on USA, or some culture from spain, for example, overtaking its cultural masters and imposing itself, imagie if england was conquered by the irish; this is what make paradox games cool, the possibilities of something different, the rise of an unexpected power, the fall of a might goverment. Vic 3 has a lot of potential and i believe paradox will deliver.

5:51 why isn’t Ethiopia Portugal maya Vietnam Babylon gran Colombia Byzantium and kublai khan here?

My world history class mainly focused on America. Yeah, it was 6th grade or something but it's inexcusable to do that, especially when American history was the very next year. I guess I missed the day when the United States was always the world (heavy sarcasm). My local schools suck, it seems, and most students will never have context for anything their nation was involved in and what even led to that stuff.

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.

Comparing EU4 a later game as well as something which has been supported way more dlc and update wise to VIC2 and asking: why less nations; seems kind of funny especially seeing the natives update for NA in EU4. I wouldn't be surprised dlc was planned for Africa if support was greater than it was at the time.

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.

"Don't worry if it doesn't quite make sense yet, it never will" I'm fucking dying

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

I can't believe Hank from breaking bad would say stuff like this!

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?

11:25 that man looks like he collects minerals