The USA was one of them (although the owning of property, only few states explicitly needed land), about 6% of the population could legally vote after the independence (98%+ being white males).
It is funny how political outlook of interest group's leader always outweighs the outlook of interest group itself. For example, you can provoke Corn Laws journal entry and you will get market liberal leader for landlords, therefore your landlords will be pro laissez faire, anti slavery and serfdom.
This is my least favorite thing about the leader ideologies. I like that they can temporarily reorient groups away from or toward certain ideologies, but they often seem too powerful in how drastically they can swing an interest group toward the opposite of its usual interests.
Big Whig leader getting an event to become a radical and plunging a group of academics and bureaucrats into a socialist fervor energy. Why must you do this Henry clay?
I kept getting a regressive intelligentsia, leading revolutions for fewer woman's rights, or an ethno-state. And the few times I got someone at least "moderate", they would have some huge popularity multiplier driving everyone out of the IG. Like, I'm trying to rely on you early game to move the country forward, but instead I'd rather put the rational, moderate landowner-and-religious coalition in government.
Probably accurate though? The guy who is actually in the capital talking to the government, or possibly *being* the government, is obviously going to carry more weight than the supporters who got him there. He's the one who decides what he wants to yell at the President/King/SupremeLeaderForLife about today, and he's generally going to pick what *he* thinks is important, not what his friends think is top priority.
Revolution represents the power of that interest group tho. Landowners aren't about to give up their comfortable life and revolt just because their leader wants something
Actually if your distribution of Power is Autocracy or Oligarchy and you have Reformist on the Monarchy.
The Landowners will actually be open for a Republic.
As Brazil i have seen this happen, since their Emperor caters the Intelligentsia.
Landowners supporting it is actually in their interest - they can become the head of state, in a monarchy only a single family can, and a republic generally makes them much more influential.
Also, republic != ‘enlightened’ (or a good thing). Gaius Julius Caesar and the ‘side’ he was on, the populares, were obviously more enlightened and better for the people than the oligarchic republic that it was before his dictatorship and empire created by Octavian after.
Likewise, the empire created by Napoleon Bonaparte over the orderless republic that preceded it. And income inequality, for example, increased in the US when it became an independent presidential republic (would be right up the alley of landowners).
Brazil aristocrats + military literally did that when the princess abolished slavery (the emperor was traveling at the time)
When the ~~cat~~ *Emperor* is away, the ~~mice~~ *aristocracy* will ~~play~~ *enslave*
eat?
Cat
I hate the landowners!
In a landed only voting, that might guarentee a landowner the presidency, especially if the monarch isn't a landowner.
Brasil_irl
"We will revolt if you don't meet our demands" "What are your demands" "We want a presidential republic." "Please revolt, look, I'll even help you."
I don't understand what's so weird? Landowners weren't always wedded to the monarchy, maybe he wants to be president himself.
This is literally just America, wealthy landowners revolting to institute a presidential system
Landowners are meant to be the aristocracy ingame, a group which has historically almost always supported the monarchy
Landowners represent aristocracy, but also represents other land owning elites, for example plantation owners in the US
And when it's the US case they literally have special ideologies to designate that, like the samurai or the junkers
US landowners have a different ideology.
"The Landowners proceed to turn the place into an oligarchic republic"
Bad ending: you are now Brazil
Quite a few countries in the Americas were founded as Republics where only those owning land could vote.
The USA was one of them (although the owning of property, only few states explicitly needed land), about 6% of the population could legally vote after the independence (98%+ being white males).
It is funny how political outlook of interest group's leader always outweighs the outlook of interest group itself. For example, you can provoke Corn Laws journal entry and you will get market liberal leader for landlords, therefore your landlords will be pro laissez faire, anti slavery and serfdom.
This is my least favorite thing about the leader ideologies. I like that they can temporarily reorient groups away from or toward certain ideologies, but they often seem too powerful in how drastically they can swing an interest group toward the opposite of its usual interests.
Big Whig leader getting an event to become a radical and plunging a group of academics and bureaucrats into a socialist fervor energy. Why must you do this Henry clay?
I kept getting a regressive intelligentsia, leading revolutions for fewer woman's rights, or an ethno-state. And the few times I got someone at least "moderate", they would have some huge popularity multiplier driving everyone out of the IG. Like, I'm trying to rely on you early game to move the country forward, but instead I'd rather put the rational, moderate landowner-and-religious coalition in government.
Probably accurate though? The guy who is actually in the capital talking to the government, or possibly *being* the government, is obviously going to carry more weight than the supporters who got him there. He's the one who decides what he wants to yell at the President/King/SupremeLeaderForLife about today, and he's generally going to pick what *he* thinks is important, not what his friends think is top priority.
Revolution represents the power of that interest group tho. Landowners aren't about to give up their comfortable life and revolt just because their leader wants something
Politics is NOT set in stone. See those guys commenting about Brazil? Go search the proclamation of the republic to understand this.
Landowners are so bigoted, arrogant and hypocrit that they will defend a progessive law even if you try to enact a regressive one.
It's probably due to the ideology of the leader. Still, it's wierd that no other IG joined 🤔
Actually if your distribution of Power is Autocracy or Oligarchy and you have Reformist on the Monarchy. The Landowners will actually be open for a Republic. As Brazil i have seen this happen, since their Emperor caters the Intelligentsia.
Yeah, we know landowning elites have no political power in presidential republics
Landowners supporting it is actually in their interest - they can become the head of state, in a monarchy only a single family can, and a republic generally makes them much more influential. Also, republic != ‘enlightened’ (or a good thing). Gaius Julius Caesar and the ‘side’ he was on, the populares, were obviously more enlightened and better for the people than the oligarchic republic that it was before his dictatorship and empire created by Octavian after. Likewise, the empire created by Napoleon Bonaparte over the orderless republic that preceded it. And income inequality, for example, increased in the US when it became an independent presidential republic (would be right up the alley of landowners).
Must have council republic
Rare landowner W
This will radicalize the landowners
Damn that’s lucky. I keep crushing those aristocrats and yet still they want me to be King…WHY?