Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
By other hand, if is an ambitious leader he can choose a monarchy rather than a republic, so he can held the power.
Is a good idea.
Ambitious would lean more towards monarchy? Idk it's justa dumb idea
I think he takes the idea from the fact that historically the lower classes support authoritative, action based populism whereas the "sophisticated" nobility often prefer to maintain the status quo.
This is how Socialist & Nationalist countries will gain support. Appealing to the lowest classes and promising them uplifting action.
Whilst the peasant generally supported authority to be taken, that doesn't mean that they would knowingly support unprincipled tyrannies.