Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

And yet' date=' they weren't called hoplites, were they?[/quote']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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

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']

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

Hippes - "Horsemen" - were definately not hoplites' date=' but (being even wealthier) carried even more poltical heft. [/quote']

 

Did they wear tie-dye?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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.

 

 

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.

[Sociotard]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

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?

 

Okay, but aren't the Lords of Waterdeep more of an oligarchy than anything else? Unless things have changed drastically in recent years, the Lords chose their own successors, who were then confirmed by the other Lords. The public of Waterdeep had nothing to do with it.

 

True, they are a mostly good (or at least more devoted to the welfare of Waterdeep than anything else) group, but they're not 'elected'.

[Shadowsoul]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

One could create a rather obscure city with a curious government by attempting to democratise the Lords of Waterdeep system.

For example - Once every two years all adult citizens may attend a vast gathering in an ancient hall beneath the city. On a gallery above the hall stand three of the nine lords of the city; all wearing fantastical masks. On a slightly lower gallery stand any number of candidates who have put themselves forward for election; they are also masked but with plain white ovals without eye or mouth holes that are differentiated only by numbers stamped upon them. These candidates must each address the crowd and the citizens must then vote for three candidates based on the speeches. The elected lords rarely appear and are always masked, no normal citizen should be aware of their ruler's identity.

Not sure what the rationale behind this would be, perhaps dark forcesTM threatened to destroy the ruling council long ago or there are similar fears generated by past infighting. Or perhaps this is some philosophical attempt to keep those interested in acclaim or glory out of government. Could just be general fantasy weirdness.

 

As for republics in fantasy novels the Estorea of Jame's Barclay's is a Romanesque republic with imperial ambitions 'justified' by a desire for the greater good.

[Vondy]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

Okay, but aren't the Lords of Waterdeep more of an oligarchy than anything else? Unless things have changed drastically in recent years, the Lords chose their own successors, who were then confirmed by the other Lords. The public of Waterdeep had nothing to do with it.

 

True, they are a mostly good (or at least more devoted to the welfare of Waterdeep than anything else) group, but they're not 'elected'.

 

Yes, oligarchy. They seem more like Aristotle's philosopher kings via self-elected committee than a democracy.

[FenrisUlf]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

Yes' date=' oligarchy. They seem more like Aristotle's philosopher kings via self-elected committee than a democracy.[/quote']

 

I should add, they were chosen from all levels of society, ranging from noble (I presume) paladins to lower-class thieves to middle-class artisans and merchants, the idea being to get a cross-section view of the city's society in the government.

[Vestnik]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

I should add' date=' they were chosen from all levels of society, ranging from noble (I presume) paladins to lower-class thieves to middle-class artisans and merchants, the idea being to get a cross-section view of the city's society in the government.[/quote']

 

Why did they bring thieves into the government? Seems a bit odd.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

Why did they bring thieves into the government? Seems a bit odd.

 

What a straight line. Almost too easy.

[FenrisUlf]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

Why did they bring thieves into the government? Seems a bit odd.

 

Because (a) a very nasty thieves' guild was a major enemy of theirs for decades, and ( the author/creator has a major-league Fritz Leiber thing going on. Thieves are everywhere because thieves are cool. They are D&D ninjas in his games.

[Midas]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

Interesting thread. As I interpret the original question(in light of the responses to the OP), "How can a Democratic society develop in a medieval or standard fantasy setting?" Close?

 

The Swiss seem to be an answer to that. I don't know much European history, but I do know that the question "How could a bunch of farmers destroy an army of knights?" Was asked by thinkers of the time. Had it been just a one time fluke, Switzerland would have fallen in the next campaign season, right?

 

Midas

[Zorak1003]

Re: Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

 

L Sprague DeCamp's FALLIBLE FIEND and his UNBEHEADED KING series both explore fantasy lands with various governments.

 

I ran a campaign for years in which the central region was a sort of republic ruled by the guilds- They had a sort of "congress" consisting of all the various guildmasters, and a smaller Council of Guildmasters elected from among them that made major policy decisions.