The Age of Nations (19th century Nation RP)

[Theodorable]

<Snipped quote by Lone Wanderer>

I think a population between 20 and 40 milion is far more accurate for a great power during the early 19th century then 50 million+. France for instance had a population of around 35 million people, Great Brittan had less then 20 million (excluding their colonies). I found this list on some forum. Also take into consideration that Germany as a unified nation did not excist yet in 1840 same for Italy I think. As far as populations goes for great powers I think anywhere between 15 to 40 million would be accurate. Regional powers between 5-10 million and micro old world (NPC) up to 5 million.

1) Russia : 62.4 million
2) Austria-Hungary : 34.9 million
3) France : 34 million
4) Germany : 32.5 million
5) Italy : 22 million
6) England + Wales : 16 million
7) Spain : 14 million
8) Ireland : 8.2 million
9) Belgium : 4.1 million
10) Sweden : 3.1 million
11) Netherlands : 2.9 million
12) Scotland : 2.5 million
13) Finland : 1.5 million
14) Denmark : 1.3 million
15) Norway : 1.2 million
16) Greece : 0.9 million

A massive population during the early 19th century would also require a massive land size. This is because argicultural production methods where still very labor intensive and inefficient. During the late 19th century you can see a massive population boom that has been made possible by the industrial revolution. With the industrial revolution kicking in, the agricultural sector became much more efficient because of mechanisation. Basically less people could work more land.

@Milkman

I understand. I may decrease the population point system marginally to compensate for this, though besides the Commonwealth, none of the other countries have overtly large populations. Within the technological frame of The of Nations, the Industrial Revolution is almost over (1760-1840).

Also a massive standing army is a giant liability. Expensive to maintain and impossible to supply and live on the land while being on campain. Just ask Napoleon how much fun he and his 800.000 soldiers had in Russia. His campain failed because of the technology of that time could not support the logistics needed for such a large army. The logistical problems where mostly solved with the invention of railroads and motorized transportation by the start of the 20th century.

Not seeing where this is an issue? The Commonwealth's population (if decreased) represents it's large martial ability.

Also I assume that the ship clasification is based upon the British system (first, second and thirth rate ships of the line). The truth about first rates is that they where expremely expensive to operate to the point that they where kept in harbor mottballed during times of peace in order to avoid damage and wear to the ships and thus expensive repair costs. I don't think that the Royal navy had more then 5 first rate ships of the line at any point during the 19th century.

It's not based off the British ship. It's just based on the 19th century Ship of the Line, with a First Rate being more expensive and a better ship than a Second Rate.

On the point of colonization. Basicly all the european powers colonized large territories with small armies by making use of their technological advantage and clever diplomacy with the various tribes, societies, princes and whatever. Support 1 tribal faction to subdue the other. Give some power to local leaders while maintaining control. This way the Dutch colonized Indonesia and never had a large army present. The British used the same tactics in India and by 1857 only had about 35.000 Native British soldiers in India.

This is the historical initiative, sure, though I'm not sure what you're arguing here?

[Milkman]

I think the Commonwealth population is very large but not excessively large. More like the upper limit It is more the mention that other great powers are short on population which is simply not true for its time period.

I personally think that the Commonwealths army is too large for the time period. There is simply not a single point in 19th century history where any of the worlds great powers managed to field an army of over 1 million men during times of war. Not to mention that very large numbers of soldiers in the field proved to be unsustainable from both a financial as a supply point of view. The most important causes of death in war during the 19th century where starvation and desease, not actual combat. Also most great European powers struggled with the financial burdons of large standing armies.

I personally think that a high amount of points in Martial prowes should account more towards actual combat performance, leadership and quality of equipment rather then size.

[Lone Wanderer]

@Milkman I would just like to point out, that it was you that decided where you allocated your points for your nation. By way of the points, our factions are equal, It seems you only have a problem with the way I spent mine because I have made a veiled threat. Nevertheless, I am completely fine if alterations are made to the army size and population to maintain historical accuracy, as-long as it applies to everyone and not just myself.
I can't speak for the way army sizes were worked out, I assume it was a % of my population but I am not privy to that information and so can't speak for it.

[Hockeystyle]

I think the Commonwealth population is very large but not excessively large. More like the upper limit It is more the mention that other great powers are short on population which is simply not true for its time period.

I personally think that the Commonwealths army is too large for the time period. There is simply not a single point in 19th century history where any of the worlds great powers managed to field an army of over 1 million men during times of war. Not to mention that very large numbers of soldiers in the field proved to be unsustainable from both a financial as a supply point of view. The most important causes of death in war during the 19th century where starvation and desease, not actual combat. Also most great European powers struggled with the financial burdons of large standing armies.

I personally think that a high amount of points in Martial prowes should account more towards actual combat performance, leadership and quality of equipment rather then size.

@Milkman

Even if they get to keep their huge army this could lead to some very interesting scorched earth tatics to use against them due to their HUGE army and dire need of food to fuel it :D

[Theodorable]

I think the Commonwealth population is very large but not excessively large. More like the upper limit It is more the mention that other great powers are short on population which is simply not true for its time period.

@Milkman

Great Powers being short on population is not an issue. Being a Great Power in The Age of Nations is more about prestige than population.

I personally think that the Commonwealths army is too large for the time period. There is simply not a single point in 19th century history where any of the worlds great powers managed to field an army of over 1 million men during times of war. Not to mention that very large numbers of soldiers in the field proved to be unsustainable from both a financial as a supply point of view. The most important causes of death in war during the 19th century where starvation and desease, not actual combat. Also most great European powers struggled with the financial burdons of large standing armies.

Again. The 19th century is merely a reference point. There also weren't any Great Powers with a population of 72,000,000 either. Please remember in 1863, the Confederate States of America had a population of 9,000,000 and mobilized over a million men to fight for them. Though here is my mistake. That number is supposed to represent available men, not active soldiers in uniform.

I personally think that a high amount of points in Martial prowes should account more towards actual combat performance, leadership and quality of equipment rather then size.

It accounts for size, fighting proficiency and command.

And I will admit here that Cultural Unity adds to available manpower pool. Austria (as a 19th century empire) could have supported a much larger army, but had problems conscripting soldiers because it had such a large ethnic base that recruiting Hungarians who didn't speak German would've only hurt the war effort.

The information on which stats effect what are secret so people don't intentionally game the system. The Commonwealth has a very homogeneous society in that his cultural unity is so high that all the subject within the nation consider themselves a Boletarian first, and are much more likely to fight for the country.

[Hockeystyle]

I had a question, what is the tech level of the African type continent?@Theodorable

[Lone Wanderer]

<Snipped quote by Milkman>

Even if they get to keep their huge army this could lead to some very interesting scorched earth tatics to use against them due to their HUGE army and dire need of food to fuel it :D

@Hockeystyle

This is also a good point, while I do have a big army and I will use that to my advantage. With it also comes weaknesses that have been laid bear, it will be a huge task to keep such a large army standing, and that I assure you will be portrayed in the RP. I'm not some unreasonable guy that just want's a huge army to crush others, I just thought it might be interesting to RP such a nation and I promise all that I won't be some arsehole about it.

Edit: I would also like to point out that I have a huge border, and I will require soldiers to protect it all. You'll never be facing a million soldiers, or even half of that for logistic reasons at one time.

[Theodorable]

Hockeystyle is would be equivalent to Sub-Saharan Africa in the early 19th century; which would be unindustrialized, low civilized. Nomadic in some regions even.

[Dedonus]

Sorry I have not finished the application yet. Was a little busy over the weekend.

[Milkman]

@Theodorable

You've put Thennia on the space I claimed for my nation :)

[Theodorable]

I realized that earlier and noted it in an early post on Page 2. It'll be moved north of Nehelenia.

[Milkman]

Sorry, I missed that one. My bad :)

[Dedonus]

Before I finish my application, I would also like to know the tech level of the New World. You already said that it will not be 'modernized' as the US was, but are we talking about (speaking in terms of Victoria 2) non-Brazilian South American countries or uncivilized nations (Japan, as an example from Victoria 2). Wanted an answer before I finish my application.

[Theodorable]

It would be remiscnient of Sub-Sahara Africa in the 1820's-1830's. Like the Mamlukes.

Obviously Serranthians and civilizations in the New World are aware that there exists the Old World and they have brought guns and germs with them, but they have neither the infrastructure nor ideology to advance their own culture to match it.

[Lone Wanderer]

Gah. I want to make a history that involves other players to create more of a background in this world, however I fear that by the time it is done another will have taken my place as a Major Power. Perhaps a PiratePad is in order?

I'll finish how the Commonwealth was founded and then start thinking about the above, that can be done after.

[Alfhedil]

It would be remiscnient of Sub-Sahara Africa in the 1820's-1830's. Like the Mamlukes.

Obviously Serranthians and civilizations in the New World are aware that there exists the Old World and they have brought guns and germs with them, but they have neither the infrastructure nor ideology to advance their own culture to match it.

@Theodorable

I was actually building my society in a way where they have not actually had a run-in with the Old World powers yet, though may have had second-hand interactions via Dedonus. Also, is there any particular reason as to why it is that they can't "westernize" as it were? Or is it a matter of this world's version of innate European superiority for "reasons"?

[LordZell]

What have I missed?

[Dedonus]

Still not quite sure about what you are wanting for the technological level of the New World...

[Milkman]

Sticks and stones vs rifles and exploding shells^^

To give you some idea of sub-sahara tech level you can read a bit about the conquests of shaka zuku in the early 19th century. After that you will understand why even small European countries could create massive colonies in Afrika :)

[Lone Wanderer]

And I believe I'm done. History is finished, not sure if i'm happy with it but for now it will do. Although I guess we should work out nation relations and what state they are in by the start of the RP.

@Theodorable Do you want us to describe our military? For instance our line infantry etc and numbers.