Allied Democracies and Oligarchies

[James the Red]

I was wondering, what you think of when you see these when playing?

If say you role-played that you installed a Rome-like republic in a city, one that has democratic institutions but dominated by aristocratic families, would that be an allied democracy or an allied Oligarchy?

[QuintusSertorius]

Oligarchy, without doubt. The crucial part is "dominated by aristocratic families" - that's by definition an oligarchy.

[HernanU]

Roma was an Oligarchic Republic not a Democracy. Cesar and Augustus overthrew the Republic with the legions in one hand and the Grachus brothers politic program in the other (distribution of the conquered land, more oportunities for the plebs, less power for the nobility and the senate, distribution of a bigger portion of the spoils, bread and circus... just like a modern democracy but without top magistrates elections).

[James the Red]

Yeah, I was just asking in comparison to outright oligarchies. Democracy is a relative term after all. Arguably, compared to Athens than the USA isn't a democracy either. (Sortition to determine politicians was used in Athenian democracy because voting for politicians was seen as aristocratic/undemocratic)

Not that the rich land-owning elites that were the founding fathers would have argued that the USA was a democracy at the time either.

[Roma_Victrix]

Yeah, I was just asking in comparison to outright oligarchies. Democracy is a relative term after all. Arguably, compared to Athens than the USA isn't a democracy either. (Sortition to determine politicians was used in Athenian democracy because voting for politicians was seen as aristocratic/undemocratic)

Not that the rich land-owning elites that were the founding fathers would have argued that the USA was a democracy at the time either.

Athens was a direct democracy, much like modern-day Switzerland, where the citizen voters directly participate in legislative decisions. The USA, on the other hand, has representative democracy, with senators and congressmen who represent their individual voting districts that supported them in an election. Yet many states in the US regularly hold "referendums" where the citizens directly participate in passing legislation or gaining enough votes to overturn existing legislation or even oust a sitting politician from his office via popularly-decided impeachment. This is termed as a "recall election" in the US (i.e. taking place well before the politician's limited term has ended), and is precisely the way that California Governor Gray Davis was ceremoniously unseated in 2003 (in an election that ultimately favored Arnold Schwarzenegger).

I think it's silly to say Athens did not have a democracy due to the fact that women, slaves, and foreign-born people were not allowed to vote. For a government in the 5th century BC, I think we're holding it to too high a modern standard when they simply had all the other prerequisites for being described as a direct democracy. At the very least the adult male population, even if they were penniless or a mere sailor in Athens' navy, formed part of the voting base the same as everyone else. As for the US, it should be remembered that, at the nation's conception, only those who owned registered landed property were allowed to vote. Black men weren't granted universal suffrage until after the Civil War (and obstructed in many places from doing so with Jim Crow laws until the civil rights acts of the 1960s), and women, aside from certain states in the union that passed their own measures beforehand, weren't allowed to vote in all 50 states until the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution passed in 1920.

In either case, I rather like this whole democracy or oligarchy choice in EB II, it's really neat. However, I think you guys should throw in a third option of having a local monarchy to rule a certain area that isn't directly administered. Even so, I would suggest wider building options for these conquered vassals and allied settlements under your faction's control. The building options are supposed to be limited, I get that, but geez, it's a little too spartan! It's almost impossible to get large cities and paved roads, for instance, in allied cities, because they often lack the infrastructure for encouraging greater population growth with better public order. You basically need a general with very good traits to inhabit a settlement like that in order for it's population to rise significantly or at all.

[Draewn]

Out of curiosity - what sort of states would be classified as Democratic rather than Oligarchic in this historical period? It's a hard enough question nowadays...

[nvm]

I'm not sure if even greek city states would count as democratic under this definition, and they are supposed to be the first thing that pops in your mind when you think democracy of this time period...

[adun12345]

Wikipedia suggests that Corinth, Megara, and Syracuse were all democracies at one point or another, for what that's worth.

Of course, there were no "democracies" per se in the ancient world outside of the Hellenistic world. And as others have noted, even ancient Greek democracies would probably not be considered democracies today, since they owned slaves and excluded women from voting.

I'm not sure what a "democratic ally" means in the context of other factions, like the Numidians or the Gauls, who as far as I know had no concept of democracy, either ancient or modern.

[Thuycidides]

Of course, there were no "democracies" per se in the ancient world outside of the Hellenistic world. And as others have noted, even ancient Greek democracies would probably not be considered democracies today, since they owned slaves and excluded women from voting.

By that argument the USA was not a republic before 1920! It's an interesting question, though.

Athenian "democracy" seems to have been the main force behind its defeat in the Peleponnesian war.

[adun12345]

I don't know if the Gauls as a whole technically practised democracy, as I've no idea if women or plebs had a vote, but the Aedui certainly practised voting in some ways according to the info in-game. I'm fairly certain I read that they voted for lawmakers, and I think their different chiefs and kings voted for a high king in some way or other. At least, that's what I took away from what I read in the game. The Auverni, from what I understand of the faction description, seem to have just had a god-king who was like 'loollzz GOML.' So probably not much democracy there but again, they might have voted for their own lawmakers.

The descriptions of the Aedui sound more "republican" than "democratic" to me; I'm pretty sure the Aedui still had a king, which is antithetical to the idea of classical democracy (even if he was elected). Pretty sure that some of the Aedui buildings (like the farms) also suggest that there were property qualifications for political participation (as there were in many other republics like Rome and Carthage), which is also antithetical to the classical ideal of democracy.

By that argument the USA was not a republic before 1920! It's an interesting question, though.

There are historians who will tell you that. Geoff Eley's Forging Democracy: The History of the Left in Europe, 1850-2000 concludes that modern democracy was an early 20th century phenomenon in Europe, largely based on the abolition of property qualifications and the enfranchisement of women. In the American case, there are a number of possible goal-posts:

On Property: North Carolina was the last state to have a hard-and-fast property qualification for white men to vote, which was abolished in 1856. However, "poll taxes," a sort of soft property qualification, remained legal until the passage of the 24th Amendment in 1964.

On Race/Immigration: The 13th Amendment to the Constitution (1865) abolished slavery. The 14th Amendment (1868) established that everyone born in the US (including all former slaves) were in fact citizens (this was sadly necessary due to the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that anyone of African descent was not a citizen...). The 15th Amendment (1870) said that all male citizens could vote, regardless of race. The 1965 Voting Rights Act took steps to enforce the 15th Amendment, which had previously been widely ignored. Non-citizens can vote in some municipal elections if they can demonstrate residency, but citizenship is required for all state and federal elections.

On Gender: The 19th Amendment (1920) allowed women to vote.

Miscellaneous: Many states in the United States prohibit convicted felons from voting.

So, it all depends on your definition of "democracy"

Athenian "democracy" seems to have been the main force behind its defeat in the Peleponnesian war.

Of course you'd say that, Thuycidides! Still on about your arch-rival Cleon, I see...

[Boogie Knight]

The descriptions of the Aedui sound more "republican" than "democratic" to me; I'm pretty sure the Aedui still had a king, which is antithetical to the idea of classical democracy (even if he was elected). Pretty sure that some of the Aedui buildings (like the farms) also suggest that there were property qualifications for political participation (as there were in many other republics like Rome and Carthage), which is also antithetical to the classical ideal of democracy.

Goddamn, you seem to know an awful lot about all this stuff. Politics and political designations, particularly where democracy is involved, in general are way over my head. And yes, as you say, I'm quite certain the Aedui building descriptions mention a property requirement for voting. Even if the building descriptions themselves don't mention it I'd be highly surprised, knowing what little I do of Celtic society and economy, to hear that there wasn't a property requirement. For a culture that so heavily emphasised gift-giving, possession of goods (livestock and luxuries) and the status associated with the accumulation of these not to at least partially judge an individual's merits on his financial assets would seem surprising. The only possible exception I could think of would be where druids were concerned as I can't think of any mention of them owning property of any kind, but then we know so little about druids that it could just be that we haven't heard that they did.

Either way, everything you've written makes for a very enlightening read.

[Boogie Knight]

I don't know if the Gauls as a whole technically practised democracy, as I've no idea if women or plebs had a vote, but the Aedui certainly practised voting in some ways according to the info in-game. I'm fairly certain I read that they voted for lawmakers, and I think their different chiefs and kings voted for a high king in some way or other. At least, that's what I took away from what I read in the game. The Auverni, from what I understand of the faction description, seem to have just had a god-king who was like 'loollzz GOML.' So probably not much democracy there but again, they might have voted for their own lawmakers.

[Wulfburk]

I think that the athenian and the US before 1920 and etc etc, they were democracies. That is, all citzens were allowed to vote. Now the definition of citzen is what changed, as in, woman were not considered citzens in ancient greece etc etc, nor slaves in the US. Its another way to look at it.

[adun12345]

I think that the athenian and the US before 1920 and etc etc, they were democracies. That is, all citzens were allowed to vote. Now the definition of citzen is what changed, as in, woman were not considered citzens in ancient greece etc etc, nor slaves in the US. Its another way to look at it.

I'll preface this by saying that I am in no way an expert on ancient political theory. However, I think it's a little more complicated than that.

As I understand it, the central question of classical democracy was whether or not there should be a property qualification for citizenship (and thus for voting rights), and if so, what sort of qualification? Ancient republics like Sparta, Carthage, and Rome all had at various times elected assemblies that would debate political issues, but those assemblies usually included some sort of property qualification for membership, which allowed those who owned more stuff to have more political power.

The theory behind classical democracy was that citizens' political power should not be determined by how much property they owned, as it was in "oligarchic" or "mixed" republics like Sparta, Carthage, and Rome. At different times, Athenian democracy had property qualifications for holding various executive and judicial offices in the city, but these positions were ultimately responsible to a single citizens' assembly that had no property qualification for membership. So, democracy was bigger than "all citizens get a vote," because even poor citizens in some oligarchies like Carthage and Rome got to vote on things occasionally. Rather, democracy was the idea that all citizens had an *equal* stake in the political process, no matter how much private wealth they possessed.

That idea of political equality, I think, is at the heart of the idea of democracy, both classical and modern, though it obviously has multiple permutations.

In the specific American case, the question of whether all citizens could vote is more complicated. The Constitution originally only allowed voting for white male citizens; however, in practice women were allowed to exercise a number of other rights and duties that we would associate with citizenship (i.e., holding property, paying taxes, entering/leaving the country, non-deportation, access to the courts, freedom of expression and religion, freedom to work, due process, transmission of citizenship to children born abroad, etc.). In that sense, women were "sort-of citizens" who were still denied the right to vote. The same could be said for free black men, both before and after the Thirteenth Amendment, who were often disenfranchised on legal technicalities (district zoning, polling location, poll tax, literacy test). At least in the context of American history, the question is a little more complicated than the straightforward expansion of citizenship to a larger and larger portion of the population.

[Jervaj]

Sparta was a republic? I always thought it was a Diarchy

[adun12345]

The Roman and Carthaginian Republics were also diarchies, with two elected consuls/suffetes. As I understand it, diarchy just means "two rulers."

Classical Sparta did have kings, which would make it a monarchy (unlike Rome or Carthage), but it also had a complex constitutional structure that involved the body of the citizenry in political decision-making (much as Rome and Carthage did). Thus, I would characterize it as a republic alongside Rome and Carthage, even though it had a monarchy (unlike, for example, the monarchies of Egypt and Syria, which denied public participation in governance).

That said, characterizing Sparta as a republic in this way may be anachronistic. I do not know, for example, if the Spartans considered themselves a republic, or if their contemporaries did.

[James the Red]

I'm not an expert or anything close to it, but here is what I'm guessing.

In Greek, monarchy means one ruler. So if republics that are headed by 2 politicians are counted as diarchies, than republics headed by one person are monarchies.
Mon = one
Archon = ruler
Diarchy = ruled by two
Triarchy = ruled by three
etc

This might be one of the differences between the original meanings of words and modern versions of them, but the common modern version of the word republic means a system without a king. Now a Diarchy like Sparta that had two kings would certainly not be a republic by that modern definition, just like constitutional monarchies like the UK are not republics.

Republic comes from the Latin 'res Publica', meaning 'public thing', so republic meant government that was a public affair of the citizens instead of the private affair of individuals, so the modern UK I guess would be considered at least partially a republic by the ancient definition because of the house of commons. A mixed system, so I suppose Sparta is the same sort of deal.

[Jervaj]

I'm not an expert or anything close to it, but here is what I'm guessing.

In Greek, monarchy means one ruler. So if republics that are headed by 2 politicians are counted as diarchies, than republics headed by one person are monarchies.
Mon = one
Archon = ruler
Diarchy = ruled by two
Triarchy = ruled by three
etc

This might be one of the differences between the original meanings of words and modern versions of them, but the common modern version of the word republic means a system without a king. Now a Diarchy like Sparta that had two kings would certainly not be a republic by that modern definition, just like constitutional monarchies like the UK are not republics.

Republic comes from the Latin 'res Publica', meaning 'public thing', so republic meant government that was a public affair of the citizens instead of the private affair of individuals, so the modern UK I guess would be considered at least partially a republic by the ancient definition because of the house of commons. A mixed system, so I suppose Sparta is the same sort of deal.

Yeah, I agree with most that you said.

It depends a lot on the point of view and the definition you want to give to each term.

Besides situations like that, where there is a King (or two) and at the same time theres an assembly with heavy weight on power control and decissions is uncommon in history. Or at least well known examples of it.
England during the modern era was one of the few actively using this system. Spain had something similar but during a much more reduced time and in some cases it was against the king's desires so it was more a political struggle than a system where everybody has his role.

[adun12345]

Republic comes from the Latin 'res Publica', meaning 'public thing', so republic meant government that was a public affair of the citizens instead of the private affair of individuals, so the modern UK I guess would be considered at least partially a republic by the ancient definition because of the house of commons. A mixed system, so I suppose Sparta is the same sort of deal.

The public/private distinction is also my understanding of what makes a republic. In that sense, one could have monarchies like Sparta that were still republics, or monarchies like Ptolmaic Egypt that were not republics.

[Draewn]

As an aside, I always thought that bit of naming similarity between the Res Publica and the Germanic Thing tradition was really, really neat. Possibly entirely coincidental (not my area of study), but neat nonetheless.