How would this work - Citizenship

[azato]

Citizenship is nothing new and has been around since...well, mankind has been around. For very small cultures it is very simple to know who is a citizen and who isn't. But as nations get larger and restrictions for citizenship get more strict what means does a person have to prove his citizenship? I am sure that the Roman empire provides a great example of this but I haven't a clue.

[sinanju]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

Here's one website I found that speaks to how ancient Romans proved their citizenship:

 

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Ancient-Classical-History-2715/Social-class-identity-verification-1.htm

[McCoy]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

Citizenship is nothing new and has been around since...well' date=' mankind has been around. For very small cultures it is very simple to know who is a citizen and who isn't. But as nations get larger and restrictions for citizenship get more strict what means does a person have to prove his citizenship? I am sure that the Roman empire provides a great example of this but I haven't a clue.[/quote']

IIRC Roman Citizens were either the acknowledged sons of citizens or freeborn men who purchased citizenship. An official called the Censor would conduct a census of citizens at irregular intervals, and maintain the citizenship rolls. Citizens could be quickly identified by their rings. A person caught wearing a citizen ring who was not on the Censor's roster was killed, I'm sure in an unpleasant way but specifics escape memory at the moment. The Censor's duties were later expanded to include keeping the offical calender and protecting the public morality.

[shadowcat1313]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

I agree with Heinlein when it comes to citizenship, requiring a term of military or civil service to obtain full citizenship.

[azato]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

That may be the case for some countries. I have decided to "rework" greyhawk and provide more detail in flavor into some of the countries. One of these is the question of citizenship (especially during a time of war) and what it means to be a citizen (or not a citizen).

 

Shadowcat, you do propose an interesting tangent ... what things would either be a requirement (necessary) and what thing would be sufficient? Luckily we have some examples as provided by Rome and given by the links provided by this group. Since I am looking for a smorgasborg in which to build different plates (nations) what are some other thoughts on citizenship in a more "medieval" or earlier setting?

 

I agree with Heinlein when it comes to citizenship' date=' requiring a term of military or civil service to obtain full citizenship.[/quote']

[ghostwolf]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

That may be the case for some countries. I have decided to "rework" greyhawk and provide more detail in flavor into some of the countries. One of these is the question of citizenship (especially during a time of war) and what it means to be a citizen (or not a citizen).

 

Shadowcat, you do propose an interesting tangent ... what things would either be a requirement (necessary) and what thing would be sufficient? Luckily we have some examples as provided by Rome and given by the links provided by this group. Since I am looking for a smorgasborg in which to build different plates (nations) what are some other thoughts on citizenship in a more "medieval" or earlier setting?

 

Azato, check out Starship Troopers (the book, not the godawful abortion hollywood produced) for context.

 

Brief snippet from wikipedia: Interspersed throughout the book are other flashbacks to Rico's high school History and Moral Philosophy course, which describe how, in the Terran Federation, the rights of a full Citizen (to vote, and hold public office) must be earned through voluntary Federal service. However, the franchise cannot be exercised until after honorable discharge from the Service, which means that active members of the Service cannot vote. Those residents who opt not to perform Federal Service retain the other rights generally associated with a modern democracy (e.g. free speech, assembly, etc.), but cannot vote or hold public office. This structure arose ad hoc after the collapse of the 20th century Western democracies, brought on by both social failures at home and military defeat by the Chinese Hegemony overseas (i.e. looking forward into the late 20th century from the time the novel was written in the late 1950s)

 

 

Good book.

[Curufea]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

Medieval Citizenship ideas-

 

It's really a contract between the government and the people, and could be broken down into levels.

A full citizen has all the obligations to the nation (ie military service, following laws and religions allowed, voting/council/government service, taxes) and the government has all the obligations to the full citizen (protection, urban and rural services, social services, etc)

You could have a lesser citizen that only has some of these (laws and taxes, versus some services) which may apply only to non-nobles, possibly the majority population of a nation.

Then you could have clients, allies, and at the low end slaves.

Envoys and ambassadors would have temporary full citizenship whilst acting in that capacity. But possibly with special dispensation to practice their own laws and religions.

[azato]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

My intent is to set up different "rules" for different countries. Some may follow a strict Romanesque paradigm, while others will follow a feudal/manor style.

 

Keep it coming...good stuff.

 

 

 

 

Medieval Citizenship ideas-

 

It's really a contract between the government and the people, and could be broken down into levels.

A full citizen has all the obligations to the nation (ie military service, following laws and religions allowed, voting/council/government service, taxes) and the government has all the obligations to the full citizen (protection, urban and rural services, social services, etc)

You could have a lesser citizen that only has some of these (laws and taxes, versus some services) which may apply only to non-nobles, possibly the majority population of a nation.

Then you could have clients, allies, and at the low end slaves.

Envoys and ambassadors would have temporary full citizenship whilst acting in that capacity. But possibly with special dispensation to practice their own laws and religions.

[Markdoc]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

Couple of points: "citizenship" is relatively modern idea, Rome not withstanding. The vast majority of people living and born in the Roman empire were not Roman citizens (in the full sense: they were not Cives Romani, but one of another civic class (there were six, if you count the fact that there were two legally distinct classes of roman Roman citizens). Heck, most people living in Rome, born of Roman parents, didn't have full citizenship (Cives Romani optimo jure).

 

Basically "citizenship" in the Roman empire consisted of a graduated series of rights, like owning property, making legal contracts, voting, holding office, different tax rights, different legal rights, etc. It was quite possible to have some of these rights, but not the others. Also citizenship wasn't a lifelong thing - you could lose it simply by moving house. If a Roman citizen with full rights (Cives Romani optimo jure) moved to a city that didn't have legal status as a Roman colony (ie: not just a city in the Roman empire, but a city that didn't have the legal status as a little offshoot of Rome) - then you lost your citizenship. You could, quite literally, do that by moving less than 50 miles from Rome.

 

Amusingly, you could get citizenship by signing up as a legionary (only citizens could be legionnaires) but once you actually signed up, you lost most of your legal rights - including the right of citizenship. As a result, any children you had while a legionary were not citizens, regardless of your status prior to joining up. You got your citizenship back once you had completed your term of service. (note: for history bugs: yes, I know it's more complex than that )

 

Anyway, the point that I'm making here is that citizenship - the idea that a person "belongs" to a certain country and that grants them inalienable rights - is a modern one, in most places. In medieval europe, tradesmen could and did wander from kingdom to kingdom - borders were porous and there was no such thing as a passport. The idea of nationality was a bit nebulous too. If you lived in Lorraine, were you German, French, Burgundian or Lorrainese? (the correct answer is "any and/or all of the above" depending on time and exact location.) The borders of "countries" waxed and waned depending on marriage, war and commercial deals and it wasn't unusual for a single province to belong to two or more "countries" at the same time. Essentially, countries were an ideal. There were usually fixed cores that defined the national ideal: Ile de France was definitively French, for example, and Southern England was definitively English. But around the edges things got fuzzy ... was The Pale English? Was Gascony? Was Gascony French? They didn't even speak French down there.... (or English).

 

That's how the English king could stand in a cathedral and take an oath before his assembled nobles and God's representatives that he was, in fact French. And English, of course. And also a little bit Spanish.

 

Basically rather than "citizenship" it was more a question of certain rights granted in exchange for personal (or group) privileges. So a "roman citizen" from the barbarian areas (Cives Foederati) gained certain privileges in return for his tribe supplying some military service. Other people living in his area, but not of his tribe might not (in which case they might be Cives peregratinii or cives provincales, if they were anything). Likewise feudal ties were upwards along lines of oathtaking, not across geographical areas, allowing a Baron in the North of England to be a "French noble" by virtue of his obligations to the French king in return for his lands in Normandy, while a count in Provence could be a "Free Englishman" by right of his feudal obligations in Kent. In the same vein, Hansa merchants were considered foreigners everywhere in England in the 14th century ... except in some ports on the Wash, where they had wangled a special status putting them on the same legal footing as local residents.

 

Given that, I'd look at how you want "citizenship" to work. It will probably be different in different places.

 

cheers, Mark

[azato]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

I do need to flesh out the rules for a least a few countries and I probably need to do it in reverse - what is the type of government -> What does it mean to live in that country -> what does it mean to be a foreigner. I imagine that in some cases, as you stated boarders will be fairly open.

 

I guess what I need to think about is the "degrees of citizenship" or to what depth I want to handle that.

 

Thanks for the great input Mark!

 

Couple of points: "citizenship" is relatively modern idea, Rome not withstanding. .....

 

cheers, Mark

[Curufea]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

Yeah, and what type of government it is for.

Citizenship for a feudal, imperial or republic government may involve military service, whereas citizenship for a democracy, meritocracy or theocracy may not.

[gojira]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

You might also want to think about the Egyptian model. People were practically owned by the pharaoh. They needed permission to travel from town to town. Their occupations were dictated by law. Often if your parent followed a trade, you were required to follow the same trade.

 

Just about the polar opposite of Markdoc's "porous borders in medieval Europe."

[Curufea]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

On the other hand - Feudal England the King owned the land and let the people work it for him.

[Markdoc]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

You might also want to think about the Egyptian model. People were practically owned by the pharaoh. They needed permission to travel from town to town. Their occupations were dictated by law. Often if your parent followed a trade, you were required to follow the same trade.

 

Just about the polar opposite of Markdoc's "porous borders in medieval Europe."

 

Right - an equally constrained example can be found in earlier European history. In the later western Roman empire, certain jobs were considered "Strategic necessities" and were constrained by law. If you were born into that occupation, you could not leave it and ducking out on your job carried heavy penalties (up to, and including, being sold as a slave: it was treated similarly to desertion from the army). These included things like (I'm not kidding) baker. Bread was a strategic asset!

 

Tokugawa Japan's another good example of the opposite to the European situation - there, popular movement was heavily constrained - in some cities, you actually needed a pass to go from one neighbourhood to another, let alone, leave the city! Trying to leave the country was punishable by death (as was trying to come back).

 

Again, it comes back to what you want. I'd start with the "feel" of a state you want. Make evil states more restrictive with regard to property laws and movement - that's in line with traditional dictatorships . In Republican-like settings most adult males (perhaps all adults) are citizens, but with that privilege comes some responsibility (for example, a requirement to serve in the military in times of need). In feudal settings, de-emphasize citizenship and play up ties of loyalty. That, as a GM, lets you mess with your players head, when a player's duty (to his feudal lord) comes in conflict with what the modern-minded player sees as a duty to his country. Areas which are tribal or confederations have similar conflicts, but you get involved by being born into a tribe, not by taking oaths. Etc.

 

I approve of the idea of trying to work out what government does - it's one of the first things I do when I set up a fantasy gaming area.

 

cheers, Mark

[LordGhee]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

Citizenship just some thoughts.

 

Citizen

Landed with a certain value usually enough to support the person so they could support a warrior in full battle regalia for its time.

Usually one had to have a parent that was a citizen but for most societies you needed the property and one could buy it.

With citizenship came the right to participate in the civil society by voting and holding office which offices could be a matter of how much land (Rome) or by birth (Sparta). Citizenship also carried the right to bear arms and defend one’s self. Citizenship also usually allow one to arrest non-citizens and one was expected to enforce the law.

A freeman could move freely (such a tradesmen) but could not bear arms and defend himself.

A gentleman is a person who can bear arms (award of arms) but has no title and therefore no property. This is consider the first level of nobility and is consider above the yeoman. In America before Citizenship became a matter of only birth this allowed non-citizens to carry weapons and defend oneself such as officers in the army. The only way to carry a weapon was under lawful statue in performance of ones duty (such as a soldier or lawman).

In England a Yeoman was a freeman who had ownership of his own land or trade but did not have an award of arms so could not carry weapons and defend one self.

A knight had enough land to support himself in battle regalia and had an award of arms associated (let no blow be unreturned) with the title to the land. In some lands the knight also had lawenforcement dutys but that was generally for the upper ranks of nobility.

Serf and slaves. A slave is the absolute property of his master, and may be sold in any way killed and no rights (such as movement, property, defense). A serf, according to the strict sense of the term, is one bound to work on a certain estate, and thus attached to the soil, and sold with it into the service of whoever purchases the land. Serf had customary and legal rights such as protection by the lord. Neither has to right to bear arms or to defend oneself. I understand the vandals when taking over roman property informed the slaves they where now serfs which gave them rights as the right to trial and not to be killed by whim (protected). This made the reconquest of roman providences harder for now the serfs had a stake.

Athens was famous as they declared that it was the first city one could move about unarmed (with out sword). This was so because the citizens could and where expect to enforce the law and if you where not a citizen the punishment usually was slavery in the silver mines a slow death (2 years) or out right death. Rome never claim such high civilized status as one had to get a body guard to protect one in moving about the city (the body guards saw to this as a way to protect their job.) In Rome a citizen could not be executed for anything except treason and this was frowned upon. Now think about a world (think modern Afghanistan) where one had to be armed or with guards to move about safely.

Lord is a title that signifies that the person has authority over people.

 

And what is this all about really

 

Authority

1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?

3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency

How to get and keep it and use it.

 

Some notes and thoughts.

 

Lord Ghee

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

One thing you should probably consider is outside influence - Nations and people have a tendency to at least partly define themselves using other people or at least their perceptions of other people, sometimes unfortunately so.

[LordGhee]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

Narf

 

 

Meaning What??

 

Please rephase

 

 

thank you Lord Ghee

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

People who join a culture tend to take on that culture's perceived traits. People who hate a culture tend to oppose that culture's perceived traits.

[gojira]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

Just reading some news stories on Afghanistan...

 

I think many areas may not have much need for the concept of citizenship. If folks don't move around that much, who cares? Local membership is likely to be based on family (clans, tribal affiliations) and heredity (your father owned the land, now you do).

 

Rome was pretty imperialistic. Perhaps that drove the need for formal citizenship? Also many places in the ancient Mediterranean took slaves. Again, that distinction -- slave or citizen -- might drive a need for some legal definition of a citizen.

 

Egypt was a large state, basically an empire over the local tribes that were conquered and absorbed. Strict laws requiring people to produce goods and stay where they were helped keep the state stable and prosperous. India's caste system strikes me as similar to Egypt -- a system to ensure a stable supply of workers, goods and services.

 

Just musing out loud here....

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

Also, what is the relationship between state and citizen, with respect to power?

[LordGhee]

Re: How would this work - Citizenship

 

I read about how American force searched the talaban for papers, this got me curious I ask some veterans and they said that the talaban issue document (much like US 100 years ago) and are a goverment with citizens as is the Afgan goverment.

 

Lord Ghee