![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sometimes people complain about the prolificness of monarchy in fantasy, or even lost-colony science fiction or space opera. Other people retort that you need monarchy or "feudalism" given the poor communications, and point at history. The democrats can point to various democracies, but Athens and Rome are city states, the 1200-1500 Estates-General little known and still under monarchy, and Poland-Lithuania and the Iroquois also little known, and the last probably disbelieved, despite being what seems a representative republic with roles for both sexex covering New York state. [Edit: I originally called that half the area of France, but this was based on a units failure.] Generally a role for democracies or at least republics will be conceded at the town or city level, but not beyond.
Rarely but increasingly, in these debates I belatedly remember the elephant in the room, one that doesn't require trusting any Wikipedia pages: the 1787 United States of America, covering an area definitely larger than France, and spread out to boot, with no more advanced technology than the printing press and newspapers. Which are helpful but don't seem necessary[1] and weren't exactly cutting edge. The ship of representative democracy was launched by a fairly primitive republic many decades before any hint of the telegraph...
[Edit: someone elsewhere argues that the colonies were in fact unified by advanced sailing technology not available to real medieval times, though he grants that there's no material reason medievals couldn't have used advanced riggings. I note that Kentucky joined the Union in 1792, nowhere near an ocean...]
So, yeah. It's not the tech, it's the social organization.
Granted, we don't know if the early and rural US would have been that militarily competitive with a monarchy; it didn't have that many neighbors. Did well later on, of course. And the Iroquois conquered an area the size of the Midwest in the Beaver Wars.
Relatedly, I wonder if one obstacle to Athens and Rome was that they were too democratic, in a sense. The official basis of power in both was the populace in full assembly, the Assembly of Athens and Tribal and Century assemblies in Rome, via plebsicites and elected magistrates and tribunes. (The Senate was both unelected and formally only advisory.) So the vast Roman Republic, shading into Empire, was ruled by what amounted to the municipal democracy[2] of Rome, much as if the USA were run by the New York City mayor and council. My point being that with direct democratic government like that, it's not obvious how you'd give colony or allied cities a voice in the metropolis even if you wanted to, compared to simply having more representatives.
[1] Scriptoria, town criers, public notices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acta_Diurna
[2] Massive plutocracy in practice and even design, but shush.
Rarely but increasingly, in these debates I belatedly remember the elephant in the room, one that doesn't require trusting any Wikipedia pages: the 1787 United States of America, covering an area definitely larger than France, and spread out to boot, with no more advanced technology than the printing press and newspapers. Which are helpful but don't seem necessary[1] and weren't exactly cutting edge. The ship of representative democracy was launched by a fairly primitive republic many decades before any hint of the telegraph...
[Edit: someone elsewhere argues that the colonies were in fact unified by advanced sailing technology not available to real medieval times, though he grants that there's no material reason medievals couldn't have used advanced riggings. I note that Kentucky joined the Union in 1792, nowhere near an ocean...]
So, yeah. It's not the tech, it's the social organization.
Granted, we don't know if the early and rural US would have been that militarily competitive with a monarchy; it didn't have that many neighbors. Did well later on, of course. And the Iroquois conquered an area the size of the Midwest in the Beaver Wars.
Relatedly, I wonder if one obstacle to Athens and Rome was that they were too democratic, in a sense. The official basis of power in both was the populace in full assembly, the Assembly of Athens and Tribal and Century assemblies in Rome, via plebsicites and elected magistrates and tribunes. (The Senate was both unelected and formally only advisory.) So the vast Roman Republic, shading into Empire, was ruled by what amounted to the municipal democracy[2] of Rome, much as if the USA were run by the New York City mayor and council. My point being that with direct democratic government like that, it's not obvious how you'd give colony or allied cities a voice in the metropolis even if you wanted to, compared to simply having more representatives.
[1] Scriptoria, town criers, public notices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acta_Diurna
[2] Massive plutocracy in practice and even design, but shush.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-03 06:06 (UTC)From:As for an active desire for romanticised nobility, of course that's part of it--hierarchy is one of those things people tend to like despite the fact it isn't good for them. But I think much of the appeal of that is also that people think things were simpler then, while ignoring the fact that the reason we have such complexity in the modern world is so that fewer people get screwed over. But I have run into a lot of people online (as opposed to in general fandom) who DO denigrate works of fiction for not being appropriately collectivist.