Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

[Sociotard]

I finally snapped.

I bought the Exalted sourcebook recently. Now, the setting is mildly dystopic (so Players are motivated to change the world) and most of the governments suck. However, the governments that feature strong oligarchies or monarchs tend to be at least somewhat effective, while anything resembling a representative or deliberative form of government is hoplessly broken.

I understand this is a standard trope of fantasy fiction. The best goverments are headed by philosopher kings and anything else is impotent and corrupt, aberations from the rightful order of things.

I just hate it.

I tolerated this trope for a long time, but I really want something different. Are there any novels with other fantasy elements (medieval tech, wizards and dragons) but which also feature Democratic Republics that are presented as being effective? Do any RPG settings feature such governments? (I haven't bought any HERO fantasy settings)

[Sociotard]

Oh, and sorry if this came accross as something of a rant. I just always hated the idea of living under a King.

[Curufea]

President, King, not a lot of difference ;-p

Seriously though, there are some Constitutional monarchies. They seem to be kinda common in fantasy - a council or senate that advises or may over-rule the king or emperor. Absolute monarchies tend to happen more in fantasy literature meant for young adults, rather than adults.
There are various oligarchies too - guilds and magic groups that have say in government.

Mythic Greece is obviously the first setting I think of for fantasy democracy :)
Any fantasised version of history could be used for different government types.

I have noticed that most fantasy absolute monarchies aren't like real life medieval monarchies. In the middle ages the church itself had a fair chunk of the political power.

I can't really talk about setting in games though - nearly all the ones I'm in, was in, or ran were created settings - not published settings.

[assault]

I can't really think of any.

Funnily enough, the Hobbits in LOTR are probably pretty close. They have the Thain, of course, but he doesn't really seem to be much more important than, say, the Mayor of Hobbiton. It's not clear what kind of government exists in Bree.

I wouldn't describe these as democratic governments, but they could pass for fairly broad oligarchies, where local chieftains and dignitaries tend to run things, but aren't really separated from their followers.

Another possible case of this would be in Fletcher Pratt's Well of the Unicorn, where the good guys exist as a bunch of disunited provinces, facing a centralised opponent. The hero spents a lot of time worrying about what kind of society is going to result from the conflict.

While there isn't a huge amount of stuff in published material (and I just know that an example is going to jump out at me as soon as I post this), there are plenty of interesting historical examples that could be worked with. There is no need for democracies and republican oligarchies to be so horribly under-respresented.

I remember when the DnD Birthright setting came out, I spent a bit of effort thinking about how to model a republic under their system. It worked well enough, if you used figurehead rulers.

I suppose that it could be argued that in high-magic settings, it would be inevitable that the most powerful members of a society would tend to become rulers, and the least powerful their subjects. That doesn't necessarily follow. In particular, it would be entirely plausible that the most powerful members might be religious leaders, who aren't interested in secular power, as long as the society generally conforms to their religious teachings. As long as the secular authorities don't mess with the church/temple, then, they are just fine. This kind of system could be sufficiently institutionalised to be relatively stable for extended periods of time. Whether or not it would eventually break down is beside the point, since even the USA has only been around for a couple of centuries, and hasn't proven its long term stability. ;)

I emphasise the religious aspect deliberately, since there is a real risk that a republic or democracy might seem like a dangerous innovation in a world of monarchies, and thus it would be useful for it to have "divine" approval.

Ah! L Sprague De Camp's Novaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novarian_series) books feature a range of different governments. At least one is a classical republic (oligarchy), while some others have stranger forms.

Anyway, I don't have any problem with you ranting about this. I quite agree. In fact, the setting I am gradually working on tends to feature a whole bunch of republican city states, even though they are dominated by a Tyrant with a mercenary army. (He's not the Bad Guy, incidentally!)

[Sociotard]

USA has only been around for a couple of centuries, and hasn't proven its long term stability. True, the Great Experiment isn't over yet.

In exalted, the "great civilzation that was" consisted of all the people with the best superpowers forming a republican oligarchy. Still, a civilzation where 300 people rule over maybe a billion, and none of the billion gets a vote, is disturbing. I could accept less than universal sufferage in my fiction, like ancient Greece, but that's too narrow.

[assault]

Anyway, this is an interesting topic, and I've repped you for bringing it up.

[The Weapon]

Bear in mind that in reality most medieval kings had FAR less effective power than presidents in the modern world. Presidents can actually change the tax rates significantly without getting their heads cut off. Kings often couldn't. They often lacked a standing miilitary to enforce their will, and that military that they did have was subcontracted out to lords with interests of their own. They couldn't raise credit without having to make massive concessions and lacked a professional investigation team to snoop on their enemies. They were put in place to maintan the law, if they made a fraction of the changes that modern states made every year they'd have a revolt on their hand. Large numbers of influential people (university staff, priests, residents of some towns) were almost totally beyond their control.

Of course places were stable without any government at all. Saga period iceland was peaceful and prosperous without any actually enforcing State law for 290 years. Disputes were solved with a kind of privatised law enforcement and judicary. It lasted longer than the United States has with less change in it's system and can thus be described as "more sucessful" than modern republics.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

[Sociotard]

The President (of the United States, anyway) can't change tax rates. The most he can do is ask Congress to.

[Vondy]

The President (of the United States, anyway) can't change tax rates. The most he can do is ask Congress to.

Which doesn't change the fact that he has far more actual power in practical terms than medieval kings did.

He may have more limited authority in theory, but in practice kings had less sweeping power. Also, while its true America has a Constitution that limits government power, the restrictions are not meaningfully greater than what the British monarchs, and later His Majesty's (elected) government operated under following the Magna Carta and some later documents. The difference was that the lords, and later the electors, is who he answered to, as opposed to the masses. But then, if you look at the original voting structure of the United States, only land owning males could vote, which was essentially the British system (at the time) ported over to America. And the President's powers reflected those of the Monarch as he related to the elected government at the time.

Indeed, Americans today pay many taxes and fees that are rooted in medieval custom (and which free men shouldn't pay according to American philosophical tenets, but this is a discussion in of itself - and it shouldn't be confused with the tax rate) without even thinking about it; and several of the President's powers are truly monarchal in scope (the power to declare war without congress, pardons, vetoes, etc). The Founding Fathers were Englishmen who decided to elect their King and call him a President. And American common law is british common law, but with a divergent historical point. Indeed, with some very difficult constitutional questions, the Supreme Court actually cites British Common law and rules according to it.

I would also note that Medieval kings could not effectively wage war or enforce law without the consent of their lords, because the lords were supplying the muscle. The President can put a military medieval kings could only dream of into action for sustained periods of time, and can federalize local forces by presidential caveat. A medieval king could never tell his local lords "hand over your troops" because those troops didn't even owe him allegiance in most cases. At best he could say: bring them, but what if the lords as a whole didn't feel like coming? It happened more frequently than modern man with his stable modern super-state and love of military adventurism commonly believes.

You're right, the president can't levy taxes without cutting a deal with congress, but then, medieval kings couldn't levy taxes without cutting a deal with their lords, hence the comment on concession made earlier. The difference is in definition rather than result. But, a President can control interest rates via the Fed without Congressional consent, which has a sweeping impact on the economy medieval kings never had. Indeed, many kings were crippled because there was no way to control interest rates.*

This isn't to say there isn't a difference, but the simple fact is, the function of all governments throughout history has been the same, only the form and practice differs. And in truth, the President of the United States has more practical power than any leader who preceded him with the exception - perhaps - of some of the Roman Emperors. Indeed, his powers are very monarchal in character (most heads of state who have them are in authoritarian regimes) and directly parallel those of Rome's Emperors and medieval kings in many cases. Americans love authority - its like a golden calf - they claim to be rebels, but they are some of the best behaved, most obedient, and unquestioning subjects in the world.

The most popular presidents - the one's Americans revere above all others - were high-handed authoritarians who abused the authority of their office and tread upon the Bill of Rights. But they won wars, so Americans love them without reservation.

Its a striking psychological dichotomy.

*which led to a lot of propaganda against a small ethnic group who shall not be named (and whose only viable option in many places was lending or running taverns due to church edicts), as well as expulsions as a way of cancelling debt.

[Enforcer84]

I finally snapped.

I bought the Exalted sourcebook recently. Now, the setting is mildly dystopic (so Players are motivated to change the world) and most of the governments suck. However, the governments that feature strong oligarchies or monarchs tend to be at least somewhat effective, while anything resembling a representative or deliberative form of government is hoplessly broken.

I understand this is a standard trope of fantasy fiction. The best goverments are headed by philosopher kings and anything else is impotent and corrupt, aberations from the rightful order of things.

I just hate it.

I tolerated this trope for a long time, but I really want something different. Are there any novels with other fantasy elements (medieval tech, wizards and dragons) but which also feature Democratic Republics that are presented as being effective? Do any RPG settings feature such governments? (I haven't bought any HERO fantasy settings)

Real life doesn't so why should fantasy?
We don't know what one looks like?
No?


There was a comic series about WWII being fought with wizards and dragons. I assume there would be some democracies there.
How effective would a democracy be in a fantasy world?
I mean with a kingdom, you kill the dragon you get knighted
in a democracy they'll form a committee to see that you get the appropriate reward* and then the committee will spend mos of its funding in the districts of the representatives that make up the committee. And if you are really unlucky, the dragon will have been representing a lobbying group and you'll be run out of the country on a rail.



*unless they already have a process for it. In which case you'll get a certificate, be asked to fill out a report in triplicate and then be charged for the damages done to the local environment/Economy/parks system while destroying the beast.


Or worse you'll end up being asked to run for office.
:help:

[assault]

I'd like to apologise for having dragged the USA into this thread. Unfortunately it seems to have become a major derailing factor...

[assault]

How effective would a democracy be in a fantasy world?
I mean with a kingdom, you kill the dragon you get knighted
in a democracy they'll form a committee to see that you get the appropriate reward* and then the committee will spend mos of its funding in the districts of the representatives that make up the committee.

I would imagine that a democracy in a fantasy world would be about as effective as, say, Athenian democracy.

If you kill a dragon, you would be everybodies' hero, and be showered with rewards. And then you would fall out of favour and be exiled. :)

Oh, and lots of money would be spent buying votes.

A republic (oligarchy) would be more or less the same, only the plutocrats/aristocrats would be more openly calling the shots. (In a democracy, or notional democracy, they would have to rely more on wardheelers.)

You know what? This is about as efficient as a monarchy would be!

[Teflon Billy]

I don't think a pure universal suffrage democracy could work very well in a high-fantasy genre world.

Wizards are quantifiably better than mundane people in a secure civil society, they just are. It's partly why the D&D movie was so ridiculous, an archmage is demonstrably more important and valuable than a serf, not bones about it.

This knocking out of the underpinning of a modern republican democracy (that all citizens are inherently equal) makes for difficulty in creating a believable fantasy world where this is so.

I see a more, oligarchical meritocracy developing. You earn your ability to weild power through personal aquisition of temporal/metaphysical/arcane/divine/etc.. power.

TB

[Sociotard]

Worse, you see Star Wars III situations come up. The Jedi have the superpowers. One day they notice their government is corrupt and start planning the coup.

[assault]

I see a more, oligarchical meritocracy developing. You earn your ability to weild power through personal aquisition of temporal/metaphysical/arcane/divine/etc.. power.

This doesn't necessarily happen or happen immediately. It is quite likely that a relatively egalitarian society could evolve into a less equal one, but this would/could take time. That "time" could well be centuries.

Furthermore, there is no reason why a basically "good" society would value one citizen more highly than another, especially if the moral basis of that society was underpinned by relatively direct and active divine contact.

In fact, it would be fair to suggest that societies in a fantasy world would be heavily influenced by the religious beliefs of those societies. A pantheon that essentially behaved like a feudal aristocracy would probably be associated with a feudal society, and so on. Of course there could be exceptions to this. The most obvious would be for the secular organisation of a society to change, while leaving the religious organisation intact, as I have suggested earlier in the thread.

All it would take would be one saint, prophet, sage or paladin, and a society could be radically transformed. (See Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light for a neato story along these lines.)

This points out one of the most interesting aspects about meritocracies of this type - are all the "superior" people members of the elite? If not, can they be absorbed by the elite? What if they identify more with the bottom tiers of the society?

There are few things more embarrassing than having some guy front up to the Pharoah and say "let my people go" - and mean it.

[Vestnik]

Define "democracy." Are we talking long-winded, sophisticated talk shops like the Athenian polis, or rural societies that normally live anarchically but elect a leader in times of war or other situations like the Zaporozhian Cossacks? Or both?

[teh bunneh]

I have a democracy (of sorts) in my high-fantasy world. The Elves elect their leader from a pool of qualified candidates. All Elves over the age of 144 are allowed to vote, and the leader remains in his post for 25 years. The system has operated with relative smoothness for many centuries.

[MorpheousXO]

I do have a little note about Exalted. There are two actual republics that I know of in Exalted, both in the east, interestingly. Bothe Chaya and Halta are republics, though Halta is the more interesting in my oppinion. :D

[Vondy]

On Harn there's the Thardic Republic. As for the medieval period, you could look at Venice of an example of an early, period appropriate republic. You pretty much have to have significant trade and an influential merchant class that can exercise its economic might for it to exist and be period correct. Non-humans, of course, may have different cultural norms that cause it to manifest.

Some other systems (not specifically republics) you could look at as alternatives to modern republican forms of government are clan and tribe based systems, which tended to be more egalitarian, if not more democratic. The Scottish clan system had some very interesting mores in terms of how leaders were selected; and in tribe systems (the ancient pre-monarchy Israelites are one example) there tended to be a combination of internal family leadership and respected elders who maintained social norms, with strong king-like leaders only emerging during times of emergency.

[Kristopher]

The most popular presidents - the one's Americans revere above all others - were high-handed authoritarians who abused the authority of their office and tread upon the Bill of Rights. But they won wars, so Americans love them without reservation.

Its a striking psychological dichotomy.

If one of those you're thinking of is FDR, there's actually a lot of dispute about him, at least in my experience. I know that he's one of my least favorite presidents.

[Vondy]

If one of those you're thinking of is FDR, there's actually a lot of dispute about him, at least in my experience. I know that he's one of my least favorite presidents.

Differing experiences, in this case. I know there are people who don't like FDR (esp. from his generation), but most people I've dealt with think he was "just spiffy" and don't know anything about him beyond his leadership during World War Two (he does deserve high marks there, I think). The negatives of his 16 years in office aren't normally covered in 20th Century History in high school, or the 10 credits of history an undergrad has to take to fill out his general education requirements. The other two I had in mind were Lincoln, and Jefferson, though the latter wasn't a war president, per se. I think in their cases, however, there are much stronger cases for the high regard they are commonly held in, though both did some highly questionable things during their terms, along with the good they achieved.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Long time lurker first time ...blah blah special interest in the subject blah blah.
Want a period specific republic that isn't one of those classic corrupt trading states? Look up the "Dittmarsch Republic."

[Sociotard]

Is the Dittmarsch Republic known by any other names? That spelling gets a whopping 10 results in google, and Ditmarsch republic gets 335. Not a lot to go on.

I looked up the altavista german-to-english of Ditmarsher and got Ditmar, but "Ditmar Republic" didn't do so well either.

[assault]

The correct spelling is "Dithmarschen".

It's well worth looking at.

[assault]

Here is a work-in-progress description of a republican city state in my world:

The Republic of Maidensgrove was established following the abdication of the Tyrant, Arn the Mad. Aside from Maidensgrove itself, it contains the smaller city of Ladysford.

The Republic is ruled by a Tribunal Council of 12 members, assisted by a Synod of Elders. The Tribunal is re-elected every Spring. Other positions are elected as required. The most notable of these are the (figurehead) King and Queen, the religious heads of the city, as well as two Censors. These positions are typically filled by members of the Synod.

Members of the Tribunal Council are referred to as Tribunes.

Maidensgrove and Ladysford are named after religious shrines dedicated to local goddesses.

Arn the Mad was a mercenary adventurer who seized control of Maidensgrove some decades ago. He received his nickname as a result of his massacre of the local aristocracy and distribution of their lands to the peasantry. He refused the title of King in favour of Tyrant in order to emphasise the irregular and temporary nature of his authority. He is also sometimes known as "Arn the Saviour".

Surviving members of the aristocracy are still plotting to regain their lands.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Dittmarsch, Ditmarsch, Dithmarsch are all orthographic possibilities for contemporary German. Adding the "en" at the end either pluralises it or (I think, cuz I'm too lazy to look up my list of case endings) can be a genitive that's been incorporated in the word by traditional usage. I take it as the latter, having had more than one argument over endings in weird 17th century German names and placenames.
Wikipedia cites it in a crapulous article on "village communities" lifted from the 11th ed. of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, but, oddly enough, omits the actual article, s.v. Dithmarschen. "A territory between the Eider, Elbe and the North Sea, forming the western part of the old ducy of Holstein.... about 550 sq miles including 90,000 inhabitants [in 1909]," all coastal marshland, some of which was reclaimed, some not.
Like many similar communities its independence was rooted in the competing claims of local potentates like the Archbishop of Bremen and his rival, the King of Denmark. The territory was divided into four "Marks" and governed by a Landrat of 48 elective "consuls." Dittmarsch defeated several invasions by the Duke of Holstein [politics in this corner of Europe are nothing if not complicated] during the early 1500s --cue heroic peasants waging guerilla war from their marshy fastness-- before sad reality triumphed.

[MorpheousXO]

Stupid sad reality, it needs to just take a nap for a few millenia!

umm... nothing to add :o

[FenrisUlf]

Of course places were stable without any government at all. Saga period iceland was peaceful and prosperous without any actually enforcing State law for 290 years. Disputes were solved with a kind of privatised law enforcement and judicary. It lasted longer than the United States has with less change in it's system and can thus be described as "more sucessful" than modern republics.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

Prosperous, maybe, but peaceful? The idea I get from the Sagas is that half the population was usually trying to murder the other half.

And didn't they have a problem with enforcing the decisions passed by the judiciary? Or so I recall, anyway.

[assault]

Prosperous, maybe, but peaceful? The idea I get from the Sagas is that half the population was usually trying to murder the other half.

Perhaps you should reread your own sentence.

"The idea I get from TV is that half the population is usually trying to murder the other half."

Blood feuds probably wouldn't have been all that common.

[FenrisUlf]

Perhaps you should reread your own sentence.

"The idea I get from TV is that half the population is usually trying to murder the other half."

Blood feuds probably wouldn't have been all that common.

Well, I ciould have been more careful, but the image I get from my own reading is that Saga-age Iceland was often a very violent society. Interestingly, much the same can be said for the Russian cossacks and the Carribbean pirates - all very democratic and very violent societies. I wonder sometimes if there's a connection between the freedom and the mayhem or not.

[assault]

Well, I ciould have been more careful, but the image I get from my own reading is that Saga-age Iceland was often a very violent society. Interestingly, much the same can be said for the Russian cossacks and the Carribbean pirates - all very democratic and very violent societies. I wonder sometimes if there's a connection between the freedom and the mayhem or not.

Just because it wasn't as violent as it was in the sagas doesn't mean it wasn't violent, of course.

I think it would be possible to find rather violent societies that weren't particularly free, though.

[tkdguy]

Offhand, TSR's Mystara (aka Known World) had the Republic of Darokin, although it's more of a plutocracy than a democracy.

ICE's non-canon Middle-earth expansion The Court of Ardor briefly describes a republic south of Harad.

I'm not sure if the Forgotten Realms' Sembia is actually a republic or not; I'll get back to you on that. It seems more like Toril's counterpart to Darokin.

[AmadanNaBriona]

On the fiction front, the Recluse Saga by L. E. Modesitt Jr. and The Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind both feature good guy goverments that are more or less democratic, from what we get to see, anyway.

[Vondy]

I would point out that much of the information available on the internet on many pre-Christian, pre-feudal Indo-European cultures has not been academically vetted and contains not only a heavy dose of ethnocentrism rooted both in internal cultural mythology (which amount to intellectual blinders), but also an agenda - sometimes intentional, sometimes subconscious - that results in white washing.

This is especially true in terms of many sites presenting information on the Celts, Zoastrian Persians, Scottish Clan System, and Nordic social paradigms; as well as a movement in India pertaining to the pre-Vedic Indus valley civilization. There are motives in play that do not lend themselves to intellectual honesty, and the claims made on these sites, as well as certain scholars who are proponents of these theories, must be taken with a spoonful of salt. Its in vogue to belittle and criticize western culture these days, and to attempt to discredit its innovations and accomplishments, and promoting other cultures as more ideal is a part of this trend.

An honest evaluation will reveal all cultures have had problems (often the same problems), and that most pre-christian, pre-medieval, or non-western societies were far from idyllic. They had good points and bad points, just as western culture does; they had innovations (often the same innovations occurring in different places and different times without outside influence - some concepts are basic); but they weren't the dreamy utopia's many people make them out to be. Life tended to be nasty, brutish, and short. It was that way for everyone.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Uh, what Von D-Man said. Except that academic vetting doesn't mean that it is any better. Give a person a degree and an impressive writing style and he can still proceed to make up what they please, especially when "Indo-Europeans" cast their pixie dust over the writer. Anyone else read Arvid Steffanson on _Aryan Idols_?
If you're interested in what strong academic writers have to say about the nature of early states, I recommend Norman Yoffee, _Myths of the Archaic State_, and, less readable but more rewarding, Adam T. Smith, _The Political Landscape_.
In short, there's no reason that you can't put a "primitive democracy" in your setting, but there _is_ reason to think that it will look like a particularly strife-torn place.
Latest literature also suggests good reason to be cautious about using ancient Athens as a model, too. This "democracy" may be a projection on the past by writers of the next century.

[FenrisUlf]

Just because it wasn't as violent as it was in the sagas doesn't mean it wasn't violent, of course.

I think it would be possible to find rather violent societies that weren't particularly free, though.

Yes, I agree with you 100%, but wouldn't that violence be almost exclusively directed outwards at the 'other', rather than internal violence between various individuals and groups (clans, tribes, etc.) within the society? To me at least, one hallmark of an absolute or dictatorial government is that it will do everything in its power to control violence and the means of inflicting it on others. Kinda hard to stay in power, else.

[FenrisUlf]

Cut for brevity:

This is especially true in terms of many sites presenting information on the... Zoastrian Persians...

Why, what criticisms are people airing about the Zoroastrian/pre-Islamic Persians? I used to read about them with the idea of creating a Fantasy culture based along Sassanid lines, and I've been interested in them ever since.

And I agree with everything else you said about blinders and some of the nonsense you can get in both academic and non-academic circles.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Well, I ciould have been more careful, but the image I get from my own reading is that Saga-age Iceland was often a very violent society. Interestingly, much the same can be said for the Russian cossacks and the Carribbean pirates - all very democratic and very violent societies. I wonder sometimes if there's a connection between the freedom and the mayhem or not.
There's a recently released book titled "The Republic of Pirates" I want to get that appears to discuss the Carribbean pirates in the height of their power, as it were... a fairly short window in time.

[assault]

Yes, I agree with you 100%, but wouldn't that violence be almost exclusively directed outwards at the 'other', rather than internal violence between various individuals and groups (clans, tribes, etc.) within the society? To me at least, one hallmark of an absolute or dictatorial government is that it will do everything in its power to control violence and the means of inflicting it on others. Kinda hard to stay in power, else.

Get in your time machine and take a walk around the streets of ancient Rome at night. ;)

I think in general the degree of success in "controlling violence" achieved by most ancient states would have to be regarded as limited. In many, many cases, they were little more than a ruling faction glued on top of whatever chaos had previously existed.

In particular, many (most?) areas had their own local elites, who were both armed and willing to use those arms in their own conflicts. Furthermore, banditry was a rather common practice in many places and periods.

The Roman success in clearing the pirates from the Mediterranean was remarkable by any standards. But as I suggested above, this didn't make Roman society violence-free.

[Kristopher]

Get in your time machine and take a walk around the streets of ancient Rome at night. ;)

BTW, should anyone with an actual time machine be reading this, I recommend against that, unless you're willing to contaminate the past with lots of bullets, or your own dead body.

[FenrisUlf]

There's a recently released book titled "The Republic of Pirates" I want to get that appears to discuss the Carribbean pirates in the height of their power, as it were... a fairly short window in time.

Thanks for mentioning it; I'll try and find it somewhere.

And yes, a short period of time -- what, from the mid-17th century (about 1660 or so) to 1725 or so, I think?

[Vondy]

Cut for brevity:



Why, what criticisms are people airing about the Zoroastrian/pre-Islamic Persians? I used to read about them with the idea of creating a Fantasy culture based along Sassanid lines, and I've been interested in them ever since.

And I agree with everything else you said about blinders and some of the nonsense you can get in both academic and non-academic circles.

Its not criticisms about them, its criticisms of a school of thought (I use the term "thought" loosely) of demi-scholars who pretty much assert that "the Zoastrians invested everything," especially in terms of western religion. A lot of it is just plain nonsense. They tend to put up web-sites, write articles on wikipedia, and publish books that have just enough fact to convince those who don't know any better while being filled with false and misleading information. The same is true of the movement I mentioned pertaining to the pre-vedic Indus Valley Civilization. Many of these books are flatly rejected by an overwhelming majority of academics from across the spectrum in terms of politics/beliefs/whatnot due to what amounts to shoddy or just downright dishonest scholarship. I wrote a post about this before. I'll see if I can find it for you.

[Vondy]

Get in your time machine and take a walk around the streets of ancient Rome at night. ;)


At night? There were neighborhoods you didn't walk in during the day without an armed escort!

[Vondy]

I wrote a post about this before. I'll see if I can find it for you.

Here are two posts where I've commented on this:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1180885&postcount=41

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1207186&postcount=31

If you want more information we can take this "out of forum."

[Sociotard]

At night? There were neighborhoods you didn't walk in during the day without an armed escort!
Besides the senate building? :)

[Bismark]

Cut for brevity:



Why, what criticisms are people airing about the Zoroastrian/pre-Islamic Persians? I used to read about them with the idea of creating a Fantasy culture based along Sassanid lines, and I've been interested in them ever since.

And I agree with everything else you said about blinders and some of the nonsense you can get in both academic and non-academic circles.

Warning: Temporary thread derail and slightly rambling post

A distinction has to be drawn between the Achaemenid and Sassanian Persians regarding their approach to religion. Although both Zoroastrian, the former were far more tolerant of other religions than the latter, who had been traumatized by 600 years of foreign rule (first Seleucid, then Parthian) and had added an unhealthy dose of nationalistic zeal to their religion. They even wrote the previous 600 years out of their history, conveniently confusing Philip of Macedon with the Roman Emperor Philip the Arab. The Sassanians also promoted the Nestorian Heresy as a way of limiting the eastward expansion of the Roman Church. On the other hand, they are rather cool (from a wargamer's perspective) and more recent info on them is revealing why they were a serious rival to the Romans (unlike their Parthian predecessors, they actually had competent infantry as well as nasty cavalry).

I used a variant of Sassanian Persia (with bit of Samanid dynasty Islamic Persian thrown in) as the basis for the Hargeshite Empire of Vashkor in my Turakian Age campaign a while back.


[Sort of] back on topic:

Even in its good days, Athens was (like Rome) not a safe place to walk around at night (or even in the daytime if you were female and did not have an escort).

Something to bear in mind even about democratic societies is the nature of law enforcement. To use the Athenian model again, foreign barbarians (including long-haired scary Scythians) were often used as police because they were regarded as less corrupt than the locals.

As regards other forms of violence in fairly democratic societies, the (pre-Northern Crusades) Estonian model was 'interesting'. The legal system was a bit scary - sneaky crimes were not allowed, but face-to-face fights which resulted in the death of one party were perfectly OK - a weak man had no right to his life or property.

Hope this helps a little.

[assault]

(unlike their Parthian predecessors, they actually had competent infantry as well as nasty cavalry).

My impression is that Parthian infantry were actually considerably more competent and numerous than they are often portrayed.

While there were occasions when they fielded all cavalry armies, they could also draw upon troops from numerous cities, as well as Arab, Armenian and other allies. They weren't exactly useless in siege warfare either, which more or less implies the presence of infantry.

Granted, they didn't have any infantry that could match Seleucid phalanxes or Roman legions, but few armies of the time did.

[Bismark]

My impression is that Parthian infantry were actually considerably more competent and numerous than they are often portrayed.

While there were occasions when they fielded all cavalry armies, they could also draw upon troops from numerous cities, as well as Arab, Armenian and other allies. They weren't exactly useless in siege warfare either, which more or less implies the presence of infantry.

Granted, they didn't have any infantry that could match Seleucid phalanxes or Roman legions, but few armies of the time did.

Depends on the definition of 'competent', really, although the Mesopotamian cities could provide some reasonable infantry, they were mainly for the defence of those cities rather than components of Parthian armies invading Roman territory.

I did not mention the Armenian allies as they were also available to the Sassanids (when they weren't flip-flopping their allegiance between Persia and Rome - something they were -ahem! - notorious for). The improvements under the Sassanid regime include trained regular archer units (some mail-armoured), the use of Dailami troops for more than skirmishing (i.e. giving them mail and turning them into the Royal Guard). Even the infamously bad levies (paighan) were useful for siege warfare.

[Just as a side-note, my current wargaming army is the 'Little Kushan' - the combination of Kushan Empire troops and the Chionite/Kidarite 'Huns' that intermittently warred with the Sassanids before getting overrun by the Hephthalites; it's fun mixing cataphracts and frothing Hun-style cavalry…]

Back on topic ;) , you could try something similar to the republican states of northern India at about the time of the Macedonian conquest (these were of course still affected by the dreaded caste structure, but less so than the kingdoms to the south of them,as the Vedic influence was diluted by Iranian influences). These could be made more 'democratic' in the modern sense of the term without too much of a stretch of the imagination.

[Clonus]

There are two basic problems with creating a genuinely democratic republic in a low-tech fantasy environment. The first is a lack of a publishing industry, meaning that the bulk of a large population will be uninformed and very probably illiterate. This can be gotten around by having your community be so small that people don't need books and newspapers to learn what's going one but in such a community there's not much need for representative. You can probably stick with a townhall democracy unless the population are simply too apathetic to concern themselves with public affairs. Most historical representave republics were in fact oligarchies, often with strong plutocratic elements.

The second and probably worse problem is that, in the absence of generally distributed effective weapons any idiot can be dangerous with, even against a pro, and the absence of the requirement for an elaborate working logistical structure to keep the professionals supplied with things like ammo and fuel, there is a much greater power imbalance between the warrior class and the noncombatants. The introduction of magic only worsens this problem. Whether it's the superhuman warriors and magicians of Exalted and D&D, or even just the Hero and GURPs characters wearing OAFs and gadgets that boost their DR, a small force of professionals can sweep away a positive horde of normal poor men. Egalitarianism only works when people really can meet on more or less equal terms.

That being said, I do have an idea of a nation reigned over by a sub-society of magicians who, being fully occupied in their magical studies most of the time, let their subjects elect representatives who actually run the place.

[assault]

You can probably stick with a townhall democracy

Fine by me. That covers Athens, during the period when its "empire" was at its height.

The second and probably worse problem is that, in the absence of generally distributed effective weapons any idiot can be dangerous with, even against a pro,

I can't think of there ever having been a period in history when that wasn't the case.

The weapons you are talking about are spears, pikes and polearms, all of which are just fine for dealing with "professionals".

Of course a fantasy world can feature superhumanly capable warriors, but that isn't necessarily the case. Cases where it is need to be examined concretely.

[1EyedJack]

It should really depend on what type of fantasy setting you are playing. Most fantasy setting closly mirror historic settings (fantasized with wizards dragons and such) If your setting is like dark ages Europe then monarchs are going to be the norm. If your game is a golden ages type of setting (like before the fall of Rome) then limmited monarchs and Democracies and Republics should exist. Keep in mind that Christanity actually helped keep the monarchs of Europe in power (Divine Right) so politcal systems should reflect prevlent religious veiws.

[assault]

If your setting is like dark ages Europe then monarchs are going to be the norm.

True, although this is also the heyday of Saga-Era Iceland and similar semi-anarchic clan societies. You could probably include the odd Republican city state too, even though most of the historic ones were dominated by nobles or the Church at this point.

Also, of course, dark ages monarchs were weaker than those of the "High" middle ages and the Renaissance. The latter tended to have more power relative to their feudal subordinates. Furthermore, many (very) early dark age monarchies were elective rather than hereditary.

If your game is a golden ages type of setting (like before the fall of Rome) then limmited monarchs and Democracies and Republics should exist.

Actually, Rome pretty much ended the era of "Democracies and Republics" during the establishment of its empire. "Limited monarchs" tended to be barbarian rulers beyond their borders.

Keep in mind that Christanity actually helped keep the monarchs of Europe in power (Divine Right) so politcal systems should reflect prevlent religious veiws.

Yes. Of course that cuts both ways. ;)

If you set the world up with the right religious views, the political systems you want become more plausible.

[Supreme Serpent]

I don't really recall any from fiction. I think it's mainly that Kings are easier from a writing point of view, have easily identifiable head, princes/princesses to get caught up in things, etc. Unless the writer specifically wants to get into the politics of a democracy or is trying to make a particular modern comparison, will probably avoid it.

GURPS Rome might have a good bit on the Republic era, but I don't know if it has any thoughts on "The Republic in a Fantasy game" where magic works, etc.

In my current recently-started fantasy game, I have several to varying degrees. One country founded by escaped slaves, have set up a pretty thorough one-adult-one-vote representative system. As time goes on if they get more spread out or lose their common focus of opposition to/defense against their former masters, holes more likely to appear in the system. Several of the city-states in my Greece-like area have varying degrees of democratic/republican government.

In mixed-race societies could have specific issues arising from that, especially if have standard "dwarves and elves live lots longer than humans" types. Living a long time could allow them to accumulate economic and political power and over time become a de facto ruling class. Or not. Depends on a lot of factors.

Republics might be MORE stable in a fantasy world, by having a lot more decision-makers. Authoritania has a strong king, but if he gets ensorcelled, can take the whole place down the tubes. Meanwhile, if Republicania's Consul gets ensorcelled, the Senate kicks him out when he starts acting crazy. Republicania could very well be more corrupt in general, but harder to get a majority corrupted about any one thing than it is to corrupt/control one person.

There was a thread a while back about the French Revolution in a fantasy setting, might be useful to refer to.

[Sociotard]

Republics might be MORE stable in a fantasy world, by having a lot more decision-makers. Authoritania has a strong king, but if he gets ensorcelled, can take the whole place down the tubes. Meanwhile, if Republicania's Consul gets ensorcelled, the Senate kicks him out when he starts acting crazy. Republicania could very well be more corrupt in general, but harder to get a majority corrupted about any one thing than it is to corrupt/control one person. ooooh, nice! This sounds like a handy plot device.

Reps to you!

[Vestnik]

Well, I ciould have been more careful, but the image I get from my own reading is that Saga-age Iceland was often a very violent society. Interestingly, much the same can be said for the Russian cossacks and the Carribbean pirates - all very democratic and very violent societies. I wonder sometimes if there's a connection between the freedom and the mayhem or not.

Not that this has anything to dp with the subject directly at hand, but my last girlfriend's grandmother was a (Don) Cossack.

But she was a little girl when 1917 rolled around, and being a Cossack post-1917 was a lot different than being one pre-1917. And I unfortunately never got the chance to talk with her, being that she is now deceased.

[FenrisUlf]

Cossacks were all over the Russian frontiers/birderlands, weren't they?

And I assume that Cossack culture went through some vast changes between the 16th and 20th/21st centuries. At least, I got the idea (from reading Harold Lamb) that the Cossacks went from blood enemies of the czar to some of his best troops.

[Vestnik]

Cossacks were all over the Russian frontiers/birderlands, weren't they?

And I assume that Cossack culture went through some vast changes between the 16th and 20th/21st centuries. At least, I got the idea (from reading Harold Lamb) that the Cossacks went from blood enemies of the czar to some of his best troops.

Yes and yes. Actually the word has a variable meaning -- its widest meaning is just "ethnic Russian who lives in a rural environment near the border."

They were the descendents of escaped serfs, criminals, and persecuted religious minorities who fled the Russian Empire and settled beyond its borders, forming quasi-military societies. Then when the Empire expanded and caught up with them again, after a lot of military and other conflict, the tsar gave them a deal whereby they would retain their ability to have local government and religious freedom and be exempted from taxation in exchange for providing soldiers for the Imperial Army.

The Soviets tried to wipe out any sense of Cossack cultural identity in the relevant regions, but did not totally succeed. They obtained official recognition in Russian law as a distinct nationality in 2001-2002. (With about 250,000 self-declared Cossacks in Russia according to the census). I have an anthropological paper on the contemporary Cossacks I can send you if you want (in pdf).

EDIT: Here's Tolstoy's description of the origin of the Cossacks from his novel of the same name. Other good descriptions of Cossack life (both set in the Civil War) are Mikhail Sholokov's Quiet Flows the Don, which is one of my favorite books, and Isaac Babel's Red Cavalry. Anyway here's the extract, with link to the whole book in English translation:

Long long ago their Old Believer ancestors fled from Russia and settled beyond the Terek among the Chechens on the Greben, the first range of wooded mountains of Chechnya. Living among the Chechens the Cossacks intermarried with them and adopted the manners and customs of the hill tribes, though they still retained the Russian language in all its purity, as well as their Old Faith. A tradition, still fresh among them, declares that Tsar Ivan the Terrible came to the Terek, sent for their Elders, and gave them the land on this side of the river, exhorting them to remain friendly to Russia and promising not to enforce his rule upon them nor oblige them to change their faith. Even now the Cossack families claim relationship with the Chechens, and the love of freedom, of leisure, of plunder and of war, still form their chief characteristics. Only the harmful side of Russian influence shows itself—by interference at elections, by confiscation of church bells, and by the troops who are quartered in the country or march through it. A Cossack is inclined to hate less the dzhigit hillsman who maybe has killed his brother, than the soldier quartered on him to defend his village, but who has defiled his hut with tobacco-smoke. He respects his enemy the hillsman and despises the soldier, who is in his eyes an alien and an oppressor. In reality, from a Cossack's point of view a Russian peasant is a foreign, savage, despicable creature, of whom he sees a sample in the hawkers who come to the country and in the Ukrainian immigrants whom the Cossack contemptuously calls 'woolbeaters'. For him, to be smartly dressed means to be dressed like a Circassian. The best weapons are obtained from the hillsmen and the best horses are bought, or stolen, from them. A dashing young Cossack likes to show off his knowledge of Tartar, and when carousing talks Tartar even to his fellow Cossack. In spite of all these things this small Christian clan stranded in a tiny comer of the earth, surrounded by half-savage Mohammedan tribes and by soldiers, considers itself highly advanced, acknowledges none but Cossacks as human beings, and despises everybody else. http://www.fdungan.com/cossack.htm

[Clonus]

The weapons you are talking about are spears, pikes and polearms, all of which are just fine for dealing with "professionals".

.

No, they really aren't. You have to know how to drill to make polearms effective. Otherwise a few men on horseback can tear right through you.

[Kristopher]

No, they really aren't. You have to know how to drill to make polearms effective. Otherwise a few men on horseback can tear right through you.

And it takes more than a handful of spearmen or pikemen to be effective.

[Inu]

No, they really aren't. You have to know how to drill to make polearms effective. Otherwise a few men on horseback can tear right through you.
Keep in mind that the 'warrior classes' weren't the only fighting men in, say, Medieval Europe. There were many semi-professional warriors among the freemen and other peasants. Additionally, given the non-standing-army nature of organised force, any reprisal for rebellion took some time to put together. In that time, experienced footmen could train others in various tactics. Finally, hubris on the part of the knights could lead to them underestimating the peasants.

This didn't happen often, and yes, most confrontations between knights and peasants ended up with a lot of dead peasants (mostly when the peasants ran and got cut down from behind). But there were cases when peasants defeated whole armies of knights -- just ask the Flemish (I think) rebels with their godendags.

But yes, military might was mainly concentrated among the upper classes, and the lack of printing presses &c probably contributed as much to the lack of successes among the peasants -- by making it impossible to organise nation-wide resistance -- as did the swords and lances of knights. A few successes here and there cannot be said to mean that peasants could revolt at will... just that they did, and occasionally were successful. After all, if it happened a lot, the knights in Flanders wouldn't have been caught unawares by unconventional tactics.

I think I agree with your basic premise -- that democracies won't flourish where the lower classes aren't a threat. I'd state it slightly differently, however. I'd say that (SW paraphrase) those who have power are loathe to relinquish it. Voting is an exercise of political power; why on earth would the king, gentry, etc give up even a tiny fraction of that power and place it in the hands of the people? Military force is one reason. Economic power is another. Most Renaissance democracies sprang up in mercantile city-states. Sometimes, other factors can be at play. Moral reasons, or merely needing allies against a corrupt or stupid king, can lead to nobles talking to commoners and even giving them more power. Witness the 13th century rebellion of Simon de Montfort against Henry III. It's a moment with many interpretations, but either or both of the above reasons many apply. =) Certainly, de Montfort was loved by the commoners. Whether he did it for pragmatic or moral reasons -- or both -- he did certainly expand the political ambitions of commoners, if not their medium-term power.

A democracy in a fantasy setting is VERY unlikely to exist, granted. I like to refer to TORG world axioms: until the modern day, the 'social' axiom was simply not high enough to sustain pure democracies. People just didn't get it; the governments didn't work. But still, given the right series of serendipitous conjunctions, I could see it working... at least for a few generations.

[assault]

A democracy in a fantasy setting is VERY unlikely to exist, granted.

True. After all, heroes never fight on the side of the poor and oppressed... :rolleyes:

[assault]

No, they really aren't. You have to know how to drill to make polearms effective. Otherwise a few men on horseback can tear right through you.

So?

And it takes more than a handful of spearmen or pikemen to be effective.

Likewise: So?

[Michael Hopcroft]

True, the Great Experiment isn't over yet.

(resraining myself from commenting)

In exalted, the "great civilzation that was" consisted of all the people with the best superpowers forming a republican oligarchy. Still, a civilzation where 300 people rule over maybe a billion, and none of the billion gets a vote, is disturbing. I could accept less than universal sufferage in my fiction, like ancient Greece, but that's too narrow.

For anything approaching alrge0scale representative democracy to work requires several things that cannot exist in most fantasy worlds; communication a a fast enough speed that quick social reactions are possible, a a populace where literacy and education are the norm, and enough peace and social stability that there is time to devote to such matters.

In pre-industrial societies, even in the most enlightened cultures the lower classes would have to work too long and too hard to devote much time to educating their children in non-practical matters. The peasant would know everything you would ever want to about the problems involved in raising food and animals, building and repairing tools and simple furnitiure, etc, but wouldn't have had time to learn to read beyond the most basic of level. Communication in a pre-industrial society is at the speed of the fastest reliable courier, and magic isn't likely to change that much (note that one must emphasize 'reliable" -- the bard telling stories of a threat from distant lands may well be a con artist talking out of his hat).

The Athenians would not even have come up with the concept of democracy did they not have a large force of slave laborers to do all their work for them and were they not producing a commodity in such great demand throughout their region that it was practically a license to print money. even then, Athens 'golden age" lasted less than a hundred and fifty years -- their democracy was not at all stable, and they ended up losing the Peleponnesian Wars to Sparta and eventually being absorbed by the openly autocratic Macedonians.

[assault]

For anything approaching alrge0scale representative democracy to work requires several things that cannot exist in most fantasy worlds; communication a a fast enough speed that quick social reactions are possible, a a populace where literacy and education are the norm, and enough peace and social stability that there is time to devote to such matters.

Point by point:
communication a a fast enough speed that quick social reactions are possible: how quick is quick? Months? Weeks? Neither of these is a problem, especially when sea travel is an option.

a populace where literacy and education are the norm: probably unnecessary. Certainly there are relatively modern examples where this wasn't the case. The early USA, for starters.

Incidentally, we haven't particularly been focussing on either representative democracy or "on a large scale" up until now. However, it is possible for city-states to dominate considerable empires, so scale doesn't seem to be that big an issue.

enough peace and social stability that there is time to devote to such matters: One of the key element to "such matters" is how the state responds in wartime! Aside from that, how much "peace and social stability" do you need? How about not being at war this year? Furthermore, since when was "social stability" an issue in a genre where thousand year old states are a dime a dozen?

The Athenians would not even have come up with the concept of democracy did they not have a large force of slave laborers to do all their work for them and were they not producing a commodity in such great demand throughout their region that it was practically a license to print money.

Two things: the essence of ancient Greek democracy was that the franchise was extended to the non-slave owning small peasants. That was what distinguished it from oligarchic systems.

Furthermore, Athens was not the only democracy in the Greek world. In fact, it is possible it may not even have been the first - as opposed to the first ones to tell us about it.

[Markdoc]

Furthermore, Athens was not the only democracy in the Greek world. In fact, it is possible it may not even have been the first - as opposed to the first ones to tell us about it.

It was, as far as we can tell, one of the first - but it was certainly not the only one. Not surprising, since in Greek culture the democratic tradition sprung out of the idea of a council of senior tribesmen who advised the king: it seems to have been a widespread concept.

Where Athens is special is:
a) they were the first, as far as we can tell, to extend the franchise to all free male adult Athenians, and curtail the power of the landowning class, making them a democracy recognisable as such to us moderns (they still had a royal family, though, don't forget, so it wasn't exactly Boston-with-sunshine)
b) they were the biggest and weathiest city in Greece and actively attracted intellectuals. Therefore they left us plenty of literature telling us how wondeful their democracy was. :D Which, to be fair, if you were a male adult Athenian was probably true, at least compared to the alternatives.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Keep in mind that the 'warrior classes' weren't the only fighting men in, say, Medieval Europe. There were many semi-professional warriors among the freemen and other peasants.

Yep. You mention the flemish below, who were famous for their spearmen (later pikemen) from the early 1200's through to the early renaissance. You could also add the English Yeomen, the spanish Almugahvars, the Swiss axemen (later Pikemen), the German ministerales and Swabian swordsmen, etc. All of these were non-gentle soldiery and all of them took armies of knights on and defeated them, not just once, but often.

This didn't happen often, and yes, most confrontations between knights and peasants ended up with a lot of dead peasants (mostly when the peasants ran and got cut down from behind). But there were cases when peasants defeated whole armies of knights -- just ask the Flemish (I think) rebels with their godendags.

An important point - I can't think of any successful *peasant* warrior types: call a flemish militia-man a peasant and you'd be likely to get a Godentag in the face! :D The Flemish militia drew largely on the burgers of the various cities, all of whom had regular drill and which fielded mixed arms forces of spearmen, (and godentag men :D), crossbowmen and a few knights (either real knights, owing fealty to the counts of Flanders or wealthy burghers who fought in knightly fashion). Infantry were always the core of any Flemish army though. The defeats of various knightly armies in Flanders can hardly have been due to "unconventional tactics" - various noble houses hired flemish mercenaries for centuries: they knew what they were getting.

But all of these non-gentle warrior types had one thing in common: they came from societies where the the non-gentle landowners outweighed the feudal powers structure. In Flanders it was the city-dwelling Burghers. They weren't democratic in the modern sense, but they did run their cities largely via charter through a council elected by the wealthier citizens. The Swiss in fact did have a democracy, even if only men voted - there, pretty much *all* the men voted, and it is from the Swiss that we get the slogan "One man, one vote". The Almughavars were drawn from the poorly-feudalised mountainous regions of Spain, where a primitive form of village democracy held sway - certainly the Almughavars themselves were democratic, their captians and officers being chosen by vote - and on some occasions the command rotating over several officers, as in old Greek armies - when they could not agree on who should lead.

Not all of these warriors had democratic leanings, though - the English Yeomanry and tthe German Ministerales were thoroughly grounded in their respective feudal societies.

It's just to point out that non-feudal societies were able to compete quite effectively (the Low counntries maintained their independance on the backs of their spearmen for 4 centuries, despite more or less continuous attempts by France and/or Germany to subdue them) - I can easily imagine a democratic fantasy society based on either the Swiss (remote rural areas where the population as a whole is free, and where elected village leaders meet to decide national policy) or Flemish (a largely urban society with some degree of democracy at the city level, perhaps united either by treaties between cities or by a nominal - and not necessarily elected - figurehead leader) models. In fact, I have both models in my game.

cheers, Mark

[Inu]

An important point - I can't think of any successful *peasant* warrior types: call a flemish militia-man a peasant and you'd be likely to get a Godentag in the face! :DYeah, I use the term 'peasant' a bit too freely. ^_- I have a fairly broad working knowledge of history, improving greatly in the middle ages, but I still have many gaps, and I too-often use the wrong term due to laziness more than anything else.

And in the interest of knowing more about the world around (and before) me, thank you for the extra detail in the rest of the post!

My current game is a D&D game set in Mystara, which TKDguy referred to earlier. I have a few nascent democracies there, such as the Republic of Darokin to which he referred. The more I know about the historical situations, the better I can flesh out my fictional ones.

[Markdoc]

Yeah, I use the term 'peasant' a bit too freely. ^_- I have a fairly broad working knowledge of history, improving greatly in the middle ages, but I still have many gaps, and I too-often use the wrong term due to laziness more than anything else.

Yeah, from your previous posts, I figured as much. What can I say: I'm a geek.

My current game is a D&D game set in Mystara, which TKDguy referred to earlier. I have a few nascent democracies there, such as the Republic of Darokin to which he referred. The more I know about the historical situations, the better I can flesh out my fictional ones.

Agreed. In my current game, I have the following "democratic" models, all drawing to some extent on historical parallels.

There's the Martic league, based loosely on the city-based economic networks like the Flemish, Hanseatic or North Italian cities. In these cities, every registered taxpayer (ie: craftsman, landowner or mechant) gets a vote for who sits on the city council, and slavery is illegal, so in theory, it's a full-fledged democracy. In practice, the guildmasters, crimelords and heads of merchant houses "organise" their affiliates and so the cities are ruled by power-blocs who routinely deliver a 95+% vote for their candidate in their ward.

There's the Eochail people, based loosely on Viking Iceland, where all adults (ie: householders) can vote, and cities or regions select a strongman or a small council to represent them on a wider scale, but the political structure there is pretty weak - most politics is at the town/city level.

And there's the Ephesian league, based loosely on the Greek city states where "schools of philosophy" have been replaced with schools of magic. In this setting, although all adult citizens have the right (indeed, duty) to vote in referenda, famous schools of magic and their alumni carry a lot of political weight - which in turn attracts those who want to make a career in politics. Mages don't get any more votes than anyone else, but everyone knows that they are brainy, well-plugged into what's going on (and responsible for much of the city's defence) so their words often sway the votes of others. You don't have to be a great mage to get people's attention, if half your drinking buddies are great mages and you're married to the archmage's niece :D because you all went to school together.

cheers, Mark

[Inu]

Yeah, from your previous posts, I figured as much. What can I say: I'm a geek.Me too. ^_^; Thanks for the compliment, too! (I haven't posted opposite you much; there's a tiny measure of awe going on there for your incredibly broad knowledge.) (Okay, that's over. Back to the thread. What's this taste on my tongue?)Agreed. In my current game, I have the following "democratic" models, all drawing to some extent on historical parallels.

There's the Martic league, based loosely on the city-based economic networks like the Flemish, Hanseatic or North Italian cities. In these cities, every registered taxpayer (ie: craftsman, landowner or mechant) gets a vote for who sits on the city council, and slavery is illegal, so in theory, it's a full-fledged democracy. In practice, the guildmasters, crimelords and heads of merchant houses "organise" their affiliates and so the cities are ruled by power-blocs who routinely deliver a 95+% vote for their candidate in their ward.

There's the Eochail people, based loosely on Viking Iceland, where all adults (ie: householders) can vote, and cities or regions select a strongman or a small council to represent them on a wider scale, but the political structure there is pretty weak - most politics is at the town/city level.

And there's the Ephesian league, based loosely on the Greek city states where "schools of philosophy" have been replaced with schools of magic. In this setting, although all adult citizens have the right (indeed, duty) to vote in referenda, famous schools of magic and their alumni carry a lot of political weight - which in turn attracts those who want to make a career in politics. Mages don't get any more votes than anyone else, but everyone knows that they are brainy, well-plugged into what's going on (and responsible for much of the city's defence) so their words often sway the votes of others. You don't have to be a great mage to get people's attention, if half your drinking buddies are great mages and you're married to the archmage's niece :D because you all went to school together.
Cool. =)

My version of the Republic of Darokin (somewhat different to the published one) is in the process of changing from a monarchy to a democratic state (a plutocracy in fact, republic in law). Basically, the king still has power; but the merchants in the cities have strong-armed him to the extent that the cities have been granted charters to permit them to pass their own laws. They still get a lot out of remaining part of the country, and not doing anything too far outside of the norm, but in effect the country is split between two powerbases -- money and land, each with their own governments -- the cities have a formally-recognised council that is increasingly threatening royal prerogative. As more and more of the country falls under the domination of the charters, the king is losing greater and greater real power; it's inevitable that he'll lose, in the end. The monarchy is dying,a nd there isn't really much that can be done to save it. All the better, say the guilds.

Inside the cities, people are elected by much the same list that you have in the Martic League, with votes largely being decided in the same way. It's a bit more free-for-all, but basically, rather than winning over individual voters, a candidate splashes around money to win over the local leaders, who effectively control the votes in their area. Money talks in Darokin, as do family contacts.

In terms of military, they have some of the oldest orders of knighthood in the world, as well as a professional army specialising in pikemen.

In the original setting, the line of kings died out a few hundred years before present; with no-one strong enough to reunite them, the country more or less fell into independent city-states, run by merchants. In recent generations, they got back together to form the republic. I decided to continue the monarchy into the present day in order to have the duelling power structures... and because I re-read The Three Musketeers and decided that I MUST rip it off entirely.

Anyway, that was longer than I intended... but since the thread is about fantasy democracies, I figured it wasn't exactly a derail. ^_- I hope it can be useful to people... and it's open to critique, naturally.

[Markdoc]

Hey, I thought it was interesting :D

In the Martic league, I used a slightly similar approach - two of the three largest cities were founded by wizard-kings (there were 5 but 2 ofthem are now moldering ruins). In Lacramar, the wizard kings (who, like any wizard worth his salt in my game world) were immortal (or at least, don't age) became stranger and stranger and less and less involved in running the city. The bureaucracy they had set up to handle mundane details essentially became self-perpetuating by selecting new members (hence, voting) and eventually became the government. The original wizard kings are (presumably) still there, inside their palace, but these days it's a securely guarded temple, not so much to keep the wizard kings in - if that were even possible - but to keep anyone else getting in to disturb them. Offerings and documents are presented in the temple and then whisked away by the hereditary priesthood, just to show the wizard kings that their servants are still on the job, should they ever become active again.

In Ilthmar, up the coast, the wizard kings likewise became strange and decadent, but the last representative there was plain nasty as well. Eventually, he drove the people to revolt and although most of the city burned down, he was eventually destroyed. The rebuilding there was overseen by an ad-hoc government of the various surving faction leaders and although over the centuries it's become similar in many ways to Lacramar - at least superficially - the different histories mean that the details and the type of people in charge are rather different.

The third large city in the league is much younger - it started as a base for raiding/trading for the Olmai (northern barbarian types) and as it grew too large to manage by warlordism, consciously copied the government of the older cities. So again, the government is similar in style but in this case, it is still mostly run by the descendants of the original founders - so the flavour is different. They've never had an aristocracy, but these days, not all families are equal.

So I've ended up with three democracies in one area, each with a slightly different flavour - which give me good grounds for political intrigue and thus player involvement - and which stops them seeming too "samey".

cheers, Mark

[Lawnmower Boy]

You know one way of making an old-timey window? Smear parchment with tallow and hang it across. I guess in a bad, windy winter (where you had a lot of parchment and tallow) you might patch over a few times. Ten? Twenty?
That's how many layers we're seeing Athenian democracy through.
These people live in a universe that is vastly far from our idealistic conception of things, although much closer to our world as it is. Think of Robert Heinlein, Jerry Falwell, Socrates and Aristotle as shamans, and you'll be on the right track according to some extraordinary (if typically academically unreadable) books published in the last few years beginning with _Cosmic Republic_.

[Vestnik]

Point by point:
communication a a fast enough speed that quick social reactions are possible: how quick is quick? Months? Weeks? Neither of these is a problem, especially when sea travel is an option.


If you postulate magical means of communication, this becomes even less of a problem.

[Kristopher]

Magical communication -- that's what's holding the Rome-analog sorta-republic together in my fantasy novel setting together long after the real Roman empire had started coming apart at the seams.

[Kristopher]

You know one way of making an old-timey window? Smear parchment with tallow and hang it across. I guess in a bad, windy winter (where you had a lot of parchment and tallow) you might patch over a few times. Ten? Twenty?
That's how many layers we're seeing Athenian democracy through.
These people live in a universe that is vastly far from our idealistic conception of things, although much closer to our world as it is. Think of Robert Heinlein, Jerry Falwell, Socrates and Aristotle as shamans, and you'll be on the right track according to some extraordinary (if typically academically unreadable) books published in the last few years beginning with _Cosmic Republic_.

Shamans?

If I'm reading that correctly, it sounds like yet another one of those grandiose, impressive, and ultimately pointless attempts to reduce all human societies/cultures to the same basic setup, in this case "people following leaders with special access to mysteries, spiritual or otherwise".

[Clonus]

True. After all, heroes never fight on the side of the poor and oppressed... :rolleyes:

Sure they do. So what? Fighting doesn't create a democracy. If anything, the opposite is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clonus http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1348964#post1348964)
No, they really aren't. You have to know how to drill to make polearms effective. Otherwise a few men on horseback can tear right through you.

So?

So, you're no longer amateurs. You've become a martial class devoting considerable time and effort to your training. That separates you from noncombatants in a way that easier-to-learn weapons don't. And while you may end up creating a kind of democracy consisting of your class, that'll end up being more of an oligarchy.

[assault]

Sure they do. So what? Fighting doesn't create a democracy. If anything, the opposite is true.

I must admit to being at a loss for a response to the idiocy of this statement.

So, you're no longer amateurs. You've become a martial class devoting considerable time and effort to your training. That separates you from noncombatants in a way that easier-to-learn weapons don't. And while you may end up creating a kind of democracy consisting of your class, that'll end up being more of an oligarchy.

It's a militia.

By the way, what "easier-to-learn weapons" are you talking about? I'm talking about spears.

[Clonus]

I must admit to being at a loss for a response to the idiocy of this statement.


If you have nothing to say, don't respond.




By the way, what "easier-to-learn weapons" are you talking about? I'm talking about spears.

Guns.

[assault]

If you have nothing to say, don't respond.

I have plenty to say, but it's all an exercise in calling you a historically illiterate idiot.

Very few democracies have ever been established without violence. Not Athens, not the US...

Guns.

Guns are easier to learn to use than spears? Much too pointless an argument for me to touch, and entirely peripheral to the main point.

[Clonus]

I have plenty to say, but it's all an exercise in calling you a historically illiterate idiot.

Very few democracies have ever been established without violence. Not Athens, not the US...


Yes but that has very little to do with what I said. The British colonies in America had elected legislatures before they had their revolution and afterward democracy was established not by the sword but by tedious talkfests. 9 times out of ten when a dictatorial government is overthrown by force, what replaces it is something no more democratic. More than half the time, the result is something more oppressive.

[Kristopher]

Guns are easier to learn to use than spears? Much too pointless an argument for me to touch, and entirely peripheral to the main point.

In the context of this discussion, the firearm, at the very least, isn't any harder.

When you're talking about spearmen vs mounted professional warriors such as knights, there's actually a good deal of training needed to get your spearmen up to speed.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Why is the question of training at all relevant here? There is no reason whatsoever that a fantasy republic cannot have a cavalry arm, or that infantry have to reach some magical threshold of effectiveness versus cavalry before a certain kind of government can exist. This is like the ghost of century old partisan rhetoric overwhelming the real historical specificity.

[Manic Typist]

Hey guys, this thread's been pretty good so far. I'm sure we can keep it constructive.

[Lawnmower Boy]

But it's so hard for us wankers....
Seriously, I can think off hand of two early modern European states that combined "equestrian classes" with functioning republics, the Polish Commonwealth and the Republic of Venice. The antebellum United States would probably be a third example if its army had run to cavalry regiments.
when we start talking about how good infantry is essential to a democracy, we really are caught in a nineteenth century debate. The ghosts of Bismarck and Lloyd George (both anti-cavalry men) rise before us and conjure up Swiss pikemen and Welsh longbowmen, the Light Division and Greek hoplites in the name of their fight with the populist conservatives who challenged their parties in the 1890s.

[Kristopher]

But it's so hard for us wankers....
Seriously, I can think off hand of two early modern European states that combined "equestrian classes" with functioning republics, the Polish Commonwealth and the Republic of Venice. The antebellum United States would probably be a third example if its army had run to cavalry regiments.
when we start talking about how good infantry is essential to a democracy, we really are caught in a nineteenth century debate. The ghosts of Bismarck and Lloyd George (both anti-cavalry men) rise before us and conjure up Swiss pikemen and Welsh longbowmen, the Light Division and Greek hoplites in the name of their fight with the populist conservatives who challenged their parties in the 1890s.

I'm pretty sure that's not how we arrived at that particular sub-debate.

It started here, in face:

The second and probably worse problem is that, in the absence of generally distributed effective weapons any idiot can be dangerous with, even against a pro, and the absence of the requirement for an elaborate working logistical structure to keep the professionals supplied with things like ammo and fuel, there is a much greater power imbalance between the warrior class and the noncombatants. The introduction of magic only worsens this problem. Whether it's the superhuman warriors and magicians of Exalted and D&D, or even just the Hero and GURPs characters wearing OAFs and gadgets that boost their DR, a small force of professionals can sweep away a positive horde of normal poor men. Egalitarianism only works when people really can meet on more or less equal terms.

That being said, I do have an idea of a nation reigned over by a sub-society of magicians who, being fully occupied in their magical studies most of the time, let their subjects elect representatives who actually run the place.

I can't think of there ever having been a period in history when that wasn't the case.

The weapons you are talking about are spears, pikes and polearms, all of which are just fine for dealing with "professionals".

Of course a fantasy world can feature superhumanly capable warriors, but that isn't necessarily the case. Cases where it is need to be examined concretely.

The debate isn't about horse vs foot, it's about whether a democracy, republic, whatever, can exist when military power is dominated by warrior elites.

[assault]

The point of "horse versus foot" is that historically, the franchise and military service were deeply intertwined.

Athens was a naval power. That meant that its poorest citizens - the oarsmen of the fleet - were essential to its military capabilities. That gave them the leverage to force the upper classes to extend the franchise to them.

On the other hand, many other cities (largely) relied on hoplites - wealthier men who could afford to buy heavy armour and equipment. They tended to have the franchise, while poorer citizens didn't.

In other cases, military power largely relied on horsemen (and earlier, charioteers). In this case, the franchise tended to be narrower still - limited to those who could afford horses and their equipment.

Rome, incidentally, largely relied on "hoplite" style heavy infantry, but largely maintained a more aristocratic constitution. Eventually, of course, the legions began to be equipped by the state...

Of course cities would deploy mixed forces. The point is the correlation between military service and the franchise. It is simply more expensive for a citizen to equip themselves as a cavalryman. Therefore, fewer citizens will be able to do so. Many more will be able to equip themselves as foot soldiers, or else be equipped as such by the state.

But note this: none of these democracies, or broad oligarchies, were handed down from above by benevolent rulers. In pretty much all cases, violence, or at least the threat of violence, was involved.

[Michael Hopcroft]

But note this: none of these democracies, or broad oligarchies, were handed down from above by benevolent rulers. In pretty much all cases, violence, or at least the threat of violence, was involved.

This should be no surprise; one of the basic definitions of government is "the organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use for force". These monopolies usually exist for a simple reason; it's hard to keep any sort of order that allows people to do their business and get on with their lives without one.

That is fundamental to the nature of government itself, and its ability to maintain its monopoly is a good measure of how successful a government or state is. That is why it can be accurately said that the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, exist solely in the imaginations of American policymakers; neither "official regime" has any ability whatsoever to control the use of force, or to exercise any actual authority, in what is claimed to be their borders. Indeed, the Iraqi government is unable to maintain a monopoly on force within i6ts own Parliament building. The result of this is that people in Iraq and Afghanistan have a great deal of trouble living their lives decently because the threat of random violence is so great.

The fact is that everyone resent the presence of these authorities until they are in need of one.

[Kristopher]

Rome, incidentally, largely relied on "hoplite" style heavy infantry, but largely maintained a more aristocratic constitution. Eventually, of course, the legions began to be equipped by the state...

Nitpick: I've never thought of Roman heavy infantry as "hoplites", given their use of the thrown pilum and the stabbing sword, as opposed to long spears.

[assault]

Nitpick: I've never thought of Roman heavy infantry as "hoplites", given their use of the thrown pilum and the stabbing sword, as opposed to long spears.

Technically the word "hoplite" derives from the type of shield used by, well, hoplites, and so doesn't apply to Roman infantry.

However, the equivalent Roman infantry came from the same social layer, and had broadly similar equivalent, so the analogy is valid.

For what it is worth, the Romans did use long spears, only changing to the pilum over time.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Thanks to Assault for that great summary of the "franchise=military service" theory. As a description of 19th century politics, it is grand.
But 19th historians did not know the sources we have now. And on this one, they were wrong. Just out in paperback and easy reading is William J. Hamblin, Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600BC: Holy Warriors at the Dawn of History (2005: Routledge: I have ISBNs 0-415-25588 and 978-0-415-25589-9). Hamblin tells us about the first societies to describe themselves in writing had kings, but also senates and popular assemblies. The old historical premise had it that primitive societies were automatically tyrannies and that the task of political science was to explain how democracies came to be. It is not, anymore.
Of course, any number of higher-capital-cost modes of war can lead to the emergence of a class of military technicians. That is why today we are ruled by a dictatorship of the air, and pilots are our gods.
Specifically, by 405BC, a small class of knights had emerged in Athens. They got involved in politics. It wasn't pretty. Nineteenth century Liberal politicians loved to talk about it. But they didn't know what modern scholars such as Hugh Bowden and Nicholas Jones know. (Looking these books up would be easy on Discworld. They'd be the crowd of big, muscular jocks menacing puny Victor Hanson books for lunch money.)

[assault]

The old historical premise had it that primitive societies were automatically tyrannies and that the task of political science was to explain how democracies came to be. It is not, anymore.

I think I am going to stop posting in this thread after this, as any resemblance it has to what it was originally about has long since disappeared.

Apparently, the notion that democracies and republics are possible in fantasy worlds is extremely disturbing to some people. I'm not sure why, but apparently it is.

My final comment though: "primitive societies" were, of course, not "tyrannies". However, as more elaborate class hierarchies developed within societies, the smaller the circle of citizens effectively became. The emergence of "democracy" (in the ancient world) could be interpreted as a temporary reversal of that trend - the reassertion of a previously disenfranchised class. It didn't last.

It is worth noting that the areas of medieval Europe that maintained the most democratic structures were generally poor - relatively unable to sustain a wealthy and powerful ruling class. In most cases they succumbed to outside rulers, although the Swiss managed to find themselves a niche - as an oligarchy. On the other hand, various merchant cities were able to maintain oligarchic forms through their wealth, although even there the main Italian cities seem to have largely been ruled by aristocrats.

In all cases, however, these systems were sustained by military power. Sometimes this power proved adequate, and sometimes it didn't.

Going back to the franchise and military service: the franchise (or at least legal rights) was usually largely based on wealth, and military service was usually largely based on wealth. This is not a coincidence. The two didn't always match, but tended to coincide over time.

By the way, being called a "tyrant" by the ruling elite could be considered a badge of honour. It meant they didn't like you. Funnily enough, this still happens.

PS: While Hamblin has obviously made a serious study of warfare in the ancient world, some of his other writings suggest that it might be worth checking his arguments very carefully...

[Kristopher]

I was under the impression that most primitive societies were "governed" on a very local level, and typically run by "big men" who had to maintain the loyalty of their followers with generousity, courage, etc, or lose their position to someone who could (simplified version).

[TheQuestionMan]

Republic of Venice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice


Hope that helps some...


QM

[NestorDRod]

OK, I'm coming into this thread late, and am completely awed and intimidated by the depth of sociological exposition being bandied about. But reading through the posts, this half-remembered quote kept coming back to me, and I thought I might as well share it, regardless of how little it may add to the discussion. ;)

I vaguely recall it being attributed to some US Senator or Congressman though his name does not come to mind. It was in response to a question comparing the US with England's constitutional monarchy.

"Monarchy is like a great ship of state, sailing serenely over the waters, carrying its passengers in comfort and luxury. Until it hits a reef, sinking and killing all hands on board.

"Democracy is like a raft. It never sinks, but you're constantly bailing out water."


I'll go back to lurking now... :winkgrin:

[Lawnmower Boy]

"Chiefs and big men.." I could regress and regress and regress, but I'm a historian ('cor, you guessed?), not an anthropologist, and that's what we do.
Back before the modern days of flying spaghetti theory, everyone was into this "evolution" paradigm. Animals evolved, the Earth evolved, human society evolved, starting with families, tribes, "primitive states," and so up an evolutionary tree leading from tyranny to democracy.
Contextual anthropology and prehistory has brought the field to the point of rejecting this. Instead of regarding, say, Cahokia, as the capital of a redistributionist big man, we see it as the site of a "ritual heptarchy."
And no, I don't know what that means either.
So, no evolution: any kind of government is possible at any stage of development. (Actually, I'd rather say that talking about "kind of government" sets us on the wrong path to start with.) Just take your favourite setting and make it a democracy. If it needs to pass a sniff test, model it on Venice, the United Netherlands, Poland, the Holy Roman Empire, 18th century America...Or, heck, Cahokia.

[AnotherSkip]

Though not as far from the ideal as some would think, the ruling council of Valdemar has a broad section personages with a strong voting ability. the council can team up against everyone else and get measures passed EXCEPT if the Monachs own and the Monarch specifically veto. Peasants can rise and eventually become leaders in this august body but (generally only as guild repersenatives). There is a bunch of stuff in the 15+ novels about Valdemar wich do deal with some political theories but mostly its decent fantasy horsey fluff.

Hopefully the new stuff ML is putting out (the 500 kingdoms stories) will significantly delve into this more interesting category soon as Mrs Lackey has some political ideas and with 500 kingdoms some have to sooner or later avoid the strict monarchical template.

[Vondy]

Nitpick: I've never thought of Roman heavy infantry as "hoplites"...

This would be because Hoplites were Greek. Its a term specific to the heavy infantry of the Golden Age of Greece. Indeed, the term is derived from the shields the Greek's used, which were unique to them. Rome also used heavy infantry, but both their kit and tactics varied - including the shield.

[Kristopher]

This would be because Hoplites were Greek. Its a term specific to the heavy infantry of the Golden Age of Greece. Indeed, the term is derived from the shields the Greek's used, which were unique to them. Rome also used heavy infantry, but both their kit and tactics varied - including the shield.

That's what I was thinking.

[Clonus]

Of course, any number of higher-capital-cost modes of war can lead to the emergence of a class of military technicians. That is why today we are ruled by a dictatorship of the air, and pilots are our gods.
.)

Not as long as we can simply refrain from refueling them.

[assault]

This would be because Hoplites were Greek. Its a term specific to the heavy infantry of the Golden Age of Greece. Indeed, the term is derived from the shields the Greek's used, which were unique to them. Rome also used heavy infantry, but both their kit and tactics varied - including the shield.

The Etruscans used infantry identical to hoplites - including the shield. They also used infantry that essentially varied only with respect to the shield. Many other of the more urbanised Italian societies did the same - including Rome.

The Hastati/Princepes/Triarii legion was a fairly late development. Even there, though, the Triarii were basically a phalanx of armoured spearmen well into the 2nd Century BC, and the Princepes only seem to have converted to the pilum about a 100-150 years earlier.

Roman tactics varied mainly in terms of the other troops they used as well as their armoured spearmen. As far as the latter went, one phalanx is much the same as any other.

No, they weren't technically hoplites, but they were recruited from the same social layers, and essentially played the same tactical role.

Incidentally, the core of Carthaginian armies were similar phalanxes of African spearmen - modeled on the mercenary hoplites they also used!

[Vondy]

ted from the same social layers, and essentially played the same tactical role.


And yet, they weren't called hoplites, were they?

[Teflon Billy]

And yet, they weren't called hoplites, were they?Does this really matter that much?

I clearly understood what was meant when hoplite was used in that context, as I'm sure many of you have. Why must we niggle over this point?

TB

[Lawnmower Boy]

I'm guessing that we're niggling over terms because "hoplite" has a very specific political meaning.
Hoplites are the basis of Greek democracy because they allow the upper middle class to take part in warfare and franchise is linked to military service.
If the Roman Republic was stabler than Greek democracies, it was because the Roman military constitution went deeper into the class structure. It had hoplites, but also soldiers with cheaper equipment, drawn from lower social classes. In the long run, this gave poorer Romans the right to participate in political affairs.
Drop these distinctions, say that guys with shields, armour and spears are all "hoplites" fighting in "phalanxes," which can be any kind of mass formation, and you wipe away the connection between "constitution" and "military constitution."
Now, I think that would be a grand move, but that's just me.

[Markdoc]

Nitpick: I've never thought of Roman heavy infantry as "hoplites", given their use of the thrown pilum and the stabbing sword, as opposed to long spears.

Yes, but Roman infantry started out with big shields and long stabby spears, - hoplites in everything but name, supported by light, unarmoured infantry with javelins and a few armoured cavalry. That's exactly the Greek model and it's the army the Romans used to conquer their immediate neighbours.

Then the celts turned up and kicked the stuffing out of them, so the early republic reformed the army into:
Triarii: veteran soldiers, still armed with long stabby spears. Still basically hoplites, designed to act as a solid core of the army
Hastati - experienced heavy infantry or Principies (less experienced heavy infantry) armed with javelins (the classical pilum hadn't been invented yet) and short swords. They were designed to fight more flexibly, using the Triarii as a reserve and core - but also to prevent the Triarii being outflanked or outmaneuvered, which had led to many of the military disasters the old army had faced. This is the army that made Rome a world power (and personally, I think it's the coolest of the Roman armies, but that's just me)

This army later faced the new-style Greek armies featuring a similar solid core - but now of macedonian-style pikemen - and took some serious knocks, though they survived (it's where we get the term pyhrric victory from).

It wasn't until a couple of hundred years later, after being nearly beaten by the Carthaginians (who also still relied on hoplite-like troops as the core of their army) that the "classical" legionaries - all armed identically with pilum and gladius appeared, and other arms were filled by mercenaries and allies. More importantly, the roman army went to a full-time professional force, which pretty quickly led to the collapse of roman democracy. And at this stage Rome was already a huge empire - the professional army was designed to expand and police it, not win it. That was done by "hoplites"

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

I'm guessing that we're niggling over terms because "hoplite" has a very specific political meaning.
Hoplites are the basis of Greek democracy because they allow the upper middle class to take part in warfare and franchise is linked to military service.

Not entirely correct. Hoplite means "one who bears a hoplon" and over time it came to mean heavy infantry fighting with spears in close order - even those who did NOT bear hoplons (like the hoplites of some of the cities of hellenistic asia minor). Hoplites were essentially heavy infantry, which means in turn, middle class to upper middle class. However it does not (and as far as we can tell, did not) automatically carry a political meaning. Hippes - "Horsemen" - were definately not hoplites, but (being even wealthier) carried even more poltical heft. At the bottom end of the scale, poorer citizens who *were* politically enfranchised fought as light infantry (Peltasts, also named after the shield they bore). The spartans had hoplites - but not all hoplites were spartiates, and not all spartiates (actually, not even most) were politically enfranchised. Same for the soldiers of the asian littoral. They worked for tyrants, for pay and were specifically identified as "hoplites" by their contemporaries: but had no voting privileges.

So you could have a vote without being a hoplite and be a hoplite without having a vote. The two terms are distinct today and were understood as such even back then (the Athenians under Solon went so far as to systematise this into 4 classes of voters/citizens: pentakosiomedimnoi, hippeis, zeugitai and thetes, based on wealth and with different privileges). To put it into the terms they used, most hoplites would have been zeugitai and most zeugitai would have been hoplites, but the two terms were not interchangable.

If the Roman Republic was stabler than Greek democracies, it was because the Roman military constitution went deeper into the class structure. It had hoplites, but also soldiers with cheaper equipment, drawn from lower social classes. In the long run, this gave poorer Romans the right to participate in political affairs.

Again, not entirely true. Until the Marian reforms, service in the Roman army was only a duty for landowners. Even the velites (the roman name for peltast) were citizens and landholders: they were just not rich enough to afford heavy infantry equipment. The breakdown with velites/peltast at the bottom (also serving as rowers when necessary), then heavy infantry and then cavalry at the top: all citizens and all, in theory, voters is more or less identical to the ideal structure for greek democracies.

Rome - just like many of the Greek cities - had a large, mostly poor disenfranchised class: it was tapping this class that made the expansion of the army after the Marian reforms possible: and by instituting a professional army dependant on the general who secured pay and privileges for it, signalled the end of the republic. You could say that in this case, extending the reach of the military into society doomed democracy rather than strengthened it. But that was a specific case: doing the same thing in Athens (integrating the thetes) strengthened their democracy (even if they did it in the end, by killing most of their opponents)

Drop these distinctions, say that guys with shields, armour and spears are all "hoplites" fighting in "phalanxes," which can be any kind of mass formation, and you wipe away the connection between "constitution" and "military constitution."
Now, I think that would be a grand move, but that's just me.

Yeah, but you also rob the word of much meaning. "Hoplites" refers to a specific kind of heavy infantry spearmen (Hoplites, for example, did not primarily fight in phalanx: one of the innovations that changed warfare in the era). The best solution, I think would be to use the word as it was originally meant: "Heavy infantry armed and fighting predominantly in the peloponesian style".

cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

Hippes - "Horsemen" - were definately not hoplites, but (being even wealthier) carried even more poltical heft.

Did they wear tie-dye?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Did they wear tie-dye?

No, but they did consume a great deal of resources, both for their horses and themselves. Or haven't you heard of the Hungry Hungry Hippes? :)

[The Weapon]

This should be no surprise; one of the basic definitions of government is "the organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use for force". These monopolies usually exist for a simple reason; it's hard to keep any sort of order that allows people to do their business and get on with their lives without one.


Actually it's really easy. They did it in Iceland for 290 years, which is longer than the USA managed to remain a minarchy. Ireland managed it for longer. Even New Orleans was less crime-ridden when the government ceased to be effective int the wake of Katrina. The problem is not that you need a monopoly of force to keep any sort of order but that eventually someone comes allong who wants the monopoly of force. Law is MORE reliable in the absence of a monopoly of enforcement, not less.


That is fundamental to the nature of government itself, and its ability to maintain its monopoly is a good measure of how successful a government or state is. That is why it can be accurately said that the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, exist solely in the imaginations of American policymakers; neither "official regime" has any ability whatsoever to control the use of force, or to exercise any actual authority, in what is claimed to be their borders. Indeed, the Iraqi government is unable to maintain a monopoly on force within it's own Parliament building. The result of this is that people in Iraq and Afghanistan have a great deal of trouble living their lives decently because the threat of random violence is so great.


Most of the violence is directly or indirectly attributable to the actions of monopoly power States though. Without the interference of such Afghanistan would arguably be essentially peaceful. Security and an end to looting in Iraq was arranged by many of the very people the government is currently shooting at. In particular Muqtada al Sadr and other clerics mobilised armed men to shut down the looters. He did not start with the "random" violence until his newspaper was shut down by armed force. Clearly the violence is increased by the presence of government troops (of whatever government) not decreased.
[/quote]


This should be no surprise; one of the basic
The fact is that everyone resent the presence of these authorities until they are in need of one.[/quote]

[Sociotard]

Actually it's really easy. They did it in Iceland for 290 years, which is longer than the USA managed to remain a minarchy. Ireland managed it for longer. Even New Orleans was less crime-ridden when the government ceased to be effective int the wake of Katrina. The problem is not that you need a monopoly of force to keep any sort of order but that eventually someone comes allong who wants the monopoly of force. Law is MORE reliable in the absence of a monopoly of enforcement, not less. Unless New Orleaners frequently shoot at rescue helicopters and lay siege to hospitals as part of normal life, you're argument seems flawed.

[AnotherSkip]

We to try to steer the thread back on course....

For a fantasy society governed by a few of mostly uncorruptible people drawn from a wide selection of society try the Forgotten Realms Waterdeep as a model.

The Lords of Waterdeep are from all classes and strata of society, with most being hidden and known to only a few. Known of to all but not necessarily known who to much of anyone, who use powerful magics to hide thier identity.

howzabout that for a suggestion?

[FenrisUlf]

We to try to steer the thread back on course....

For a fantasy society governed by a few of mostly uncorruptible people drawn from a wide selection of society try the Forgotten Realms Waterdeep as a model.

The Lords of Waterdeep are from all classes and strata of society, with most being hidden and known to only a few. Known of to all but not necessarily known who to much of anyone, who use powerful magics to hide thier identity.

howzabout tha