Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

[assault]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

Sure they do. So what? Fighting doesn't create a democracy. If anything' date=' the opposite is true.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

If you have nothing to say' date=' don't respond.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

Guns are easier to learn to use than spears? Much too pointless an argument for me to touch' date=' and entirely peripheral to the main point.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

But note this: none of these democracies' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

Rome' date=' 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...[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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' date=' anymore.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

Republic of Venice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice

 

 

Hope that helps some...

 

 

QM

[NestorDRod]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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...

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

"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]

Mercedes Lackey

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

This would be because Hoplites were Greek. Its a term specific to the heavy infantry of the Golden Age of Greece. Indeed' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

That's what I was thinking.

[Clonus]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

This would be because Hoplites were Greek. Its a term specific to the heavy infantry of the Golden Age of Greece. Indeed' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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

 

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