Doulocracy: how's it work?

[Sociotard]

I was shooting through my copy of Fantasy Hero again, and noticed the term Doulocracy on page 320, listed as a form of government. It means, according to the book, Government by Slaves. How would such a government system work? Why wouldn't the first bill passed be "We're free, We're free"? Could it maybe be a little like Ancient China, with its Eunuch Beurocrats? I really am curious about this. Any thoughts?

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

I imagine the ruling class can't change certain fundmental societal laws like who is a slave and who isn't.

 

So maybe it's like being a King for year, you can change all the laws save the fact that you are a King and at the end of the year, you get thrown into the volcano and another King is chosen.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

I kind of like the sound of this. It's an extension of the "whoever is capable of getting themselves elected should under no accounts be allowed to take office" kind of thinking.

 

Keith "Don't put me in charge. Or throw me in that thar briar patch" Curtis

[Sociotard]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

It could also mean that, if you're displeased with his policies, you can have your representative whipped.

[James Gillen]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

I was shooting through my copy of Fantasy Hero again' date=' and noticed the term Doulocracy on page 320, listed as a form of government. It means, according to the book, Government by Slaves. How would such a government system work? Why wouldn't the first bill passed be "We're free, We're free"? Could it maybe be a little like Ancient China, with its Eunuch Beurocrats? I really am curious about this. Any thoughts?[/quote']

 

Yes, I believe it's sort of like with the Eunuchs in China. Another example would be with the Mameluks in the Ottoman Empire. The men were technically slaves (property of the state) but in practice held the day-to-day power.

 

JG

[UltraRob]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

Small bit here:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/collections/slavery/history.html

 

In “The Great American Question, Democracy vs. Doulocracy,†William Wilson characterized the 1848 presidential election as a contest between democracy and doulocracy, “the government of servants or slaves,--the 250,000 slaveholders being governed, through the medium of their fears . . . by their slaves, and they controlling the Republic . . . by threats of secession from the Union if they should not be allowed to rule,â€

 

And here:

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~pnm3r/kituwah/Chapter%202-02.htm

 

Throughout the Southeastern United States, there existed independent as well as integrated Afro-Indian communities led by African and mixed-blood religio/political leaders such as Asi Yahola (Osceola), Black Factor, Luis Pacheco, Mulatto King, and Chief Wildcat: 85 Kenneth Wiggins Porter described the importance of these Africans among the Seminole in Florida, "But not only were there chiefs of mixed Indian and Negro Blood among the Seminoles, and free negroes acting as principal counselors and war-captains, but...the position of the very slaves was so influential that the Seminole nation might present to students of political science an interesting and perhaps almost unique example of a very close approach to a doulocracy, or government by slaves."

 

But except for these, I can't seem to find much else on actual examples...or even close examples...I think the aformentioned Chinese and Ottoman examples are probably the best ones I have heard.

 

Rob

[Vanguard00]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

In a more genre-related answer, I think a dulocracy might best be illustrated by the presumption of the "noble" class that running a government is beneath them. Perhaps there's an elite class of people who choose which favored slave(s) will control which aspects of power. The slaves are ultimately responsible to the elite class, but for the most part are left to make policies and what-not. The elite class could then reap the benefits of ultimate power without any of the tedious responsibility.

 

No doubt there'd be a safeguard in place, some way for the elite class to ensure the slaves in question don't abuse their power, but I could see it happening.

[AlHazred]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

IIRC, in RW history, the only doulocracies that have existed (virtually or in reality) were client states, in which the "slaves" which governed were not owned by any subject of said state. That would be the easiest way to implement such a system in a game.

 

Come to think of it, I don't remember any doulocracies in Turakian Age. Will have to find a way to fit one in.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

In a more genre-related answer' date=' I think a dulocracy might best be illustrated by the presumption of the "noble" class that running a government is beneath them.[/quote']I think this is probably on the right track. The nobility rules, but does not govern. The petty annoyance of governance is foisted off on the slaves.

[Steve Long]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

The best historical examples I'm aware of are the previously-mentioned Mamelukes and (in some aspects) the eunuch bureaucracy of Imperial China.

 

I think the crucial detail to remember here is that the state of slavery is not always horrifically-overworked-and-brutally-oppressed-poor-natives bit that the modern media likes to use. In some places and times, being a slave was a much better state of affairs than being a poor peasant or the like. After all, if the slaves hold the power, why would they not want to remain slaves? In such cases I expect the title "slave" is for all intents and purposes a meaningless formality -- power is still power, even if it's behind the throne.

 

Though I agree, on the face of it the concept of "government by slaves" doesn't really ring true in the modern mind....

[Agemegos]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

It means' date=' according to the book, Government by Slaves. How would such a government system work? Why wouldn't the first bill passed be "We're free, We're free"?[/quote']

 

Others have already pointed out the historical examples of government by people who were technically slaves. I just want to add the observation that you are confounding the executive authority with the legislative. Just because slaves might run the government doesn't mean that they have the power to make laws. There might be a separate legislature, or the community might hold that its traditional laws cannot be changed by any human agency.

[assault]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

I think the slave bureaucrat idea is right. The Romans were into this kind of thing as well, although they mainly used freedmen - former slaves. This ensured that the nobility still notionally had the power of hiring and firing their officials.

 

Having your officials dependent on you is a good way of ensuring they rule in your interests, rather than their own. They get privileges, you get loyalty.

 

Someone else mentioned the mixed Native- and African-American settlements in the southern US. Apparently, at least some of the "slaves" "owned" by Indians were actually free, but passed as slaves when dealing with white officials. Amongst other things, it reduced the probability of them being (re-)enslaved for real.

[Nuke]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

The best historical examples I'm aware of are the previously-mentioned Mamelukes and (in some aspects) the eunuch bureaucracy of Imperial China.

 

What about in medieval England?

 

-- Nuke

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

 

ARTHUR: Yes.

 

DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting--

 

ARTHUR: Yes, I see.

 

DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--

 

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

 

DENNIS: But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--

 

ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

[cyst13]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

I'm currently running a campaign set in 13th Century Egypt, which was governed by the Mamluks. When the Arabs spread out from Arabia and conquered all of North Africa, they spread their own forces very thin. As a way of supplementing their armies, they used slaves, mainly from what is now Turkey. In the year 1250 AD, these slave soldiers (ghulams) were so powerful that they were able to exploit a weakness in Arab succession and put themselves into the Sultanate. Interestingly, they chose to maintain the process of manning their army with Turkish slaves. Technically, every Turk in the army was a slave, including the Sultan himself. Although the Sultan could be said to be his own owner (wha???). Strange as this form of government may seem to us, it managed to maintain itself for 500 years, when the Mamluks were finally conquered by the Ottoman Empire.

 

As Steve Long also mentioned, slavery was often seen as a form of social advancement. Being a ghulam gave one the opportunity of working one's way up in the military, which ruled Egypt & Syria. One might even become Sultan one day. This was opposed to living a life of almost guaranteed destitution and violence as a free man back in Asia Minor. Many turks weighed the pros and cons and decided to sell themselves into Mamluk slavery. Before we start praising slavery, though, we should keep in mind that this was a bizarre exception. The Mamluks and Arabs also took black Africans as slaves, and they lived horrid and very short lives. Most slaves would rather not be slaves.

[cyst13]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

Nuke,

 

I've done a fair amount of research into English history and while they did have slaves at certain points, I'm unaware that the English were ever governed by slaves. If you could quote time periods and names, I'd love to learn something new.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

Nuke,

 

I've done a fair amount of research into English history and while they did have slaves at certain points, I'm unaware that the English were ever governed by slaves. If you could quote time periods and names, I'd love to learn something new.

 

At a guess, you've never seen Mony Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail.

[Nuke]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

At a guess' date=' you've never seen Mony Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail.[/quote']

 

Apparently not. For your benefit, cyst13, there is a scene in the Holy Grail (a Monty Python comedy about King Arthur et al) where Arthur is scouring the lands searching for knights to join him at his court in Camelot. He approaches a peasant outside a castle and has a political argument with him. The castle is ruled by the peasants who don't have a lord. Arthur explains how he was handed excalibur by the lady in the lake, signifying by divine providence that he should carry excalibur, and that is why he is king.

 

Dennis, the peasant responds with something like:

 

"Strange women lying around in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derived from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Just because some watery tart threw a sword at you is no reason you should be king. I mean, if I was to go around saying I should be an emporer just because moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!"

 

It's sad how many times I saw that movie in college that I can remember the lines so well after 10 years since I've seen in last.

 

eek

-- Nuke

[cyst13]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

Uhhh... The Holy Grail (which I've watched till my eyes bled), while being perhaps the funniest film ever put to celluloid, was not a documentary. That's not actually English history. And even if it were, I still don't see how it relates to the question of whether the English were ruled by slaves. That guy was talking about a commune of free peasants, not a government ruled by slaves.

[Agemegos]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

Uhhh... The Holy Grail (which I've watched till my eyes bled)' date=' while being perhaps the funniest film ever put to celluloid, was not a documentary.[/quote']

 

Yes. And the post that alluded to it was not intended seriously. Humour, ark, ark!

 

By the way, the word 'serf' is derived from the Latin 'servus', which meant 'slave'.

[Markdoc]

Re: Doulocracy: how's it work?

 

>>> The Mamluks and Arabs also took black Africans as slaves, and they lived horrid and very short lives. Most slaves would rather not be slaves.<<<

 

Whilst in some cases true, this was not always the case: the Egyptian-based Fatmid Caliphate relied heavily on a Black Guard of African slaves (Ibn Tulun, who built Cairo's first great Mosque - still standing: I visited it a couple of years ago - is said to have had 40,000 black slave soldiers), which enjoyed much the same status as the later slave regiments, until the Fatimids' destruction. The Moorish kingdom of Cordoba had a black guard as well, also composed of slaves - this idea was widely copied among its successor states, until the 12th century.

 

The idea was, since the slaves had been seized and carried away to an area where they had no kin and no local ties, they would be more loyal to their owner, than local nobles who had their own agendas. In some cases, this looks like it was true - the Black Guard in Egypt resisted Saladin's armies to the last.

 

Although in some cases, these slave armies wielded considerable - even primary - power, as far as I know, it was always through a figurehead: contrary to what was posted earlier, the Turkish sultans, although some of them were figureheads for the leaders of the Jannissaries (who were slaves) were never slaves themselves. Likewise, although Baybars is often referred to as an example of a mameluk Sultan, he was appointed to that position by the Emir and ruled (in theory) as a servant of the Abbasid Caliph. Of course he got his position by killing his successor and threat of doing the same to the emir, but nonetheless, it was still a "power behind the throne" sort of thing.

 

Thus a Doulocracy is (I guess) power wielded by a slave class through a figurehead - and in all the real life cases I can think of, those slaves were soldiers.

 

Also, I am unaware that the slave armies included many "volunteeer" slaves: During the heyday of the Mameluks the Circassian and Balkans slave trade shipped an estimated 65000 slaves a year, and these were captured in the old fashioned way: mostly by raiding.

 

Last of all don't confuse Ghulams (the word means "Guard" in the sense of "King's Guard" or similar) with Mameluk (the word means "one owned by another"). There could be - and were - Ghulams who were slaves, but in most cases the word refers to free men: the Kurdish Ghulams who formed the core of Saladin's armoured cavalry, were mercenaries or volunteers, not slaves, and the Ghaznavid Ghulams were mostly minor nobility.

 

cheers, Mark