So what\'s the connection?

[Grilled Fubu]

I'm perplexed on the rumored inclusion of Machiavelli's "the Prince" as something of a guide document to C:TW like Sun Tzu's Art of War for S:TW.

Wasn't the Crusades (at the least the most famous events of it) finished long before "the Prince" was published? I think if "the Prince" is going to linked to a Totalwar game, the game has to be about the Intra-Italian states war on the 15th century itself or any European states wars AFTER Prince was published. It's blatantly ANACHRONISTIC and some tactics described in the Prince can't be applied in Crusaders battlegrounds, because other than the fact historically the Prince hasn't been written yet, it's not specifically written for fields of war in Crusaders.

I got a feeling that these CA guys happens to like a lot classic books on tactics and strategy. They like Sun Tzu's and Musashi's - so they created a game based upon Medieval Asian Warfare. Perfect idea and execution. Then one guy in the back said "Hey, how 'bout Machiavelli's Prince for our next game. I read it once in High School and it has a lot of divide and conquer stuff. I think it's very applicable and totally appropriate on this game we're making. And imagine if people looking at the game box and say: Hey this game has the Prince included in it. Cool, Makiavelli " And so it happens.

What do you think guys? I'm in no way unenthusiastic about the game. Making a Crusades game is very original and I believe CA will make a stellar game. However, I just believe connecting the Prince and Crusades is a bit off.

[Lord Cardigan]

Your missing the point of Machiavellis "The Prince" the connection does not refer to actual battlefield strategy but events that will probably take place on the strategy map. The Prince detailed how one might rise up the ranks to take control of a nation through manipulation, decit, and other non direct means. By eliminating those above you in the power structure rather than through raising an army. This will appear in Crusaders i should imagine in a similar way to the use of Geisha, ninja and chinoby in Shogun. The connection to Machiavelli therefore refers to political going ons in the game rather than actual battlefield strategy. You have a point with the date discrepancys but you will find that a similar power structure existed in most European countrys during the latter stages of Crusaders ie the Rennaisance as it did to when Machiavelli wrote. You got a point though concerning battlefield strategy machiavelli is completley irrelevant to this.

[clink]

Didn't this Mach-ia-velli-'s or what ever have more to with political strategy or structure,than warfare?
---------------------------------------------
'Eat your weakest man'

[LordTed]

who

[solypsist]

i could see the connecion, despite the big differences in timelines.

[johnmcd]

I suppose it depends if they are using The Prince as a design document for the strategy game or as something to quote from on load screens. I lived with a guy doing a Phd on The Prince and frankly I think it could make a excellent game if executed properly.

[Devil_Hanzo]

Well, there is actually an old game by HDI called Machiavelli: The Prince (aka Merchant Prince) in which you play as a Venetian merchant and have to "buy" senators and cardinals to get power in the Venetian senate as well as in the papal state. Doesn't have all that much to do with the Prince, but there are quite a few things that could be "based on" concepts from the Prince.

[Papewaio]

Didn't this Mach-ia-velli-'s or what ever have more to with political strategy or structure,than warfare?
---------------------------------------------
'Eat your weakest man'

What is warfare but the ulitmate expression of political intent. I think even Sun Tzu admits that

------------------
Victory first, Battle last.

[Erado San]

Well, one of Macchiavelli's main principles was that of 'Divide and Conquer'. That one will certainly apply to any strategy game with multiple factions.

[clink]

Quote Originally posted by Erado San:
Well, one of Macchiavelli's main principles was that of 'Divide and Conquer'. That one will certainly apply to any strategy game with multiple factions.[/QUOTE]
---------------------------------------------
AH!.....So now I see where the birth of Liberalism was founded.

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

Papewaio wrote:
What is warfare but the ulitmate expression of political intent. I think even Sun Tzu admits that

Sun Tzu may have said that, but in the West, von Clausewitz was the leading promoter of that idea. Hitching the military to the state proved beneficial in that it provided for better control over the military than had been the case under other systems. I think that Brithish military historian John Keegan argues very convincingly in his The History of Warfare, however, that war is not political, but cultural in its expression. Put another way, the reasons we fight & how we fight are determined by cultural factors (our ideals, values, philosophies) more than "the extension of policy by other means." I think one only needs to look at the differences between war at the beginning & at the end of the 20th century to see that.


------------------
The Taisho Who was Thursday

[Hirosito]

Gabriel,

i think you are right but not categorically.
often morals, ethics etc. are a cause for war and in the 20th century many different ideologies were fighting for supremacy. However we also saw 'wars' in places like Kosovo where religion was definitely not the cause but the excuse. If you check more carefully you will find that this the case more often than not. Even America's fight against communism was not only ideological.

------------------
Hirosito Mori

A warrior's wisdom is shown in the treating of his defeated opponent