Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
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.