Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
This article is a follow on from a discussion between Xen and myself in the New Units Forum, which I thought would be more appropriate here in the History Forum.
Basically, the whole civ series has misrepresented this type of ancient government, so much so that people are beginning to believe that the game is right and history is wrong!
Well, Id like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.
The Types Of Ancient Government
------------------------------------
Broadly speaking, there were three main types:-
* Rule by one man = Tyranny, Dictatorships, Emperors and Monarchies.
* Rule by a small elite = Timocracy, Aristocracy and Oligarchy.
* Rule by the people = Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic.
Tyrannies, Dictatorships, and Emperors all rule by the force of the army. Anyone can be leader; a corrupt politician, a rebellious general, even the son of an ex-slave. All they need is the support of the army.
Monarchies dont require military support (although it doesnt hurt to have it), as only a member of the royal family can rule. You or I couldnt suddenly claim I am King! for example, because not only would the nobles laugh at us, so would the common people, as we dont have royal blood in our veins.
This made Monarchies far more stable....although every Monarch had to watch other members of their immediate family very, very closely!
Timocracies, Aristocracies and Oligarchies are ruled by a small elite section of the population, usually by self-seeking rich land owners, whose main priority is to maintain their privileges by keeping the common people in their place.
Almost all the city-states of ancient Greece were of this type, as were many of the various Celtic tribes of Briton & Gaul (at least, those that werent ruled by dictatorships or kings). Carthage is another example, as the common people had very little say in the running of the state.
Sparta is an unusual example. This was a very strict caste society, with the relatively few Spartites at the top wielding all the political power, the more numerous Perioeci (who were free citizens, with no power) below them, and a huge mass of serfs called Helots at the bottom with no freedom whatsoever (but unlike slaves, Helots could not be sold).
Athenian Democracy, which began in 509BC, was rule from the bottom up rather than from the top down. All the male citizens were required by law to vote on every single issue of state policy.
Unlike todays democracies, this was DIRECT voting....not the selection of someone to represent a section of the population.
This meant that Athenian Democracy was little more than institutionalised mob rule....gifted demagogues would frequently use their skill in oratory to lead the people from one wild policy change after another, and every male citizen would be required to vote on a subject, even if they had absolutely no idea of what is was about!
(Imagine yourself being asked to vote on some modern day complex fiscal policy....just because you have a vote does not mean that you are a good economist.
)
Despite what many scholars today would have you believe, Athenian Democracy was not a great success, as very few ancient people rushed to adopt this type of government.
The Roman Republic on the other hand, which was unique to Rome when they threw off their Etruscan kings in 510BC, was far more successful.
Originally, like most city-states, this was an Oligarchy of the rich and powerful patricians. But after nearly a century of bloodless class struggles (with the common plebeians going on strike several times), it evolved into a highly structured system of government.
Its strength was due to being a mixture of all the above types of government.
There were the dictatorial powers of the two yearly elected Consuls, the self seeking powers of the oligarchial Senate, and the democracy of the common people in the Popular Assemblies.
All these different elements acted as a check upon each other, making the Roman Republic a far more stable institution than Athenian Democracy.
The Limitations Of The Republic
------------------------------
All the civ games have automatically assumed that a Republic is superior to a Monarchy.
Why?
Lets look at the historical facts:-
Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic were both designed to rule A SINGLE CITY.
The Republic did well for the first 400 years, but the strain proved to be too much for it, and the whole system began to fall apart in the 1st century BC. After several civil wars it finally collapsed altogether and Rome ended up under the dictatorship of the emperors for the next 500 years in the west, and some 1,200 years in the east.
An ancient Republic was just not capable of ruling a far flung empire.
Plus the fact that every civilization in the world, ALL of them, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, was a Monarchy of one sort or another during the Dark Ages and the early Medieval period.
So why oh why does every civ in the game become a Republic before the Middle Ages?
And how on earth can you have a feudal society with Knights under a representative government? The two are the complete opposite of each other!
Just because its in a game, doesnt mean that it is right.
Basically, the whole civ series has misrepresented this type of ancient government, so much so that people are beginning to believe that the game is right and history is wrong!
Well, Id like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.
The Types Of Ancient Government
------------------------------------
Broadly speaking, there were three main types:-
* Rule by one man = Tyranny, Dictatorships, Emperors and Monarchies.
* Rule by a small elite = Timocracy, Aristocracy and Oligarchy.
* Rule by the people = Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic.
Tyrannies, Dictatorships, and Emperors all rule by the force of the army. Anyone can be leader; a corrupt politician, a rebellious general, even the son of an ex-slave. All they need is the support of the army.
Monarchies dont require military support (although it doesnt hurt to have it), as only a member of the royal family can rule. You or I couldnt suddenly claim I am King! for example, because not only would the nobles laugh at us, so would the common people, as we dont have royal blood in our veins.
This made Monarchies far more stable....although every Monarch had to watch other members of their immediate family very, very closely!
Timocracies, Aristocracies and Oligarchies are ruled by a small elite section of the population, usually by self-seeking rich land owners, whose main priority is to maintain their privileges by keeping the common people in their place.
Almost all the city-states of ancient Greece were of this type, as were many of the various Celtic tribes of Briton & Gaul (at least, those that werent ruled by dictatorships or kings). Carthage is another example, as the common people had very little say in the running of the state.
Sparta is an unusual example. This was a very strict caste society, with the relatively few Spartites at the top wielding all the political power, the more numerous Perioeci (who were free citizens, with no power) below them, and a huge mass of serfs called Helots at the bottom with no freedom whatsoever (but unlike slaves, Helots could not be sold).
Athenian Democracy, which began in 509BC, was rule from the bottom up rather than from the top down. All the male citizens were required by law to vote on every single issue of state policy.
Unlike todays democracies, this was DIRECT voting....not the selection of someone to represent a section of the population.
This meant that Athenian Democracy was little more than institutionalised mob rule....gifted demagogues would frequently use their skill in oratory to lead the people from one wild policy change after another, and every male citizen would be required to vote on a subject, even if they had absolutely no idea of what is was about!
(Imagine yourself being asked to vote on some modern day complex fiscal policy....just because you have a vote does not mean that you are a good economist.
)Despite what many scholars today would have you believe, Athenian Democracy was not a great success, as very few ancient people rushed to adopt this type of government.
The Roman Republic on the other hand, which was unique to Rome when they threw off their Etruscan kings in 510BC, was far more successful.
Originally, like most city-states, this was an Oligarchy of the rich and powerful patricians. But after nearly a century of bloodless class struggles (with the common plebeians going on strike several times), it evolved into a highly structured system of government.
Its strength was due to being a mixture of all the above types of government.
There were the dictatorial powers of the two yearly elected Consuls, the self seeking powers of the oligarchial Senate, and the democracy of the common people in the Popular Assemblies.
All these different elements acted as a check upon each other, making the Roman Republic a far more stable institution than Athenian Democracy.
The Limitations Of The Republic
------------------------------
All the civ games have automatically assumed that a Republic is superior to a Monarchy.
Why?
Lets look at the historical facts:-
Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic were both designed to rule A SINGLE CITY.
The Republic did well for the first 400 years, but the strain proved to be too much for it, and the whole system began to fall apart in the 1st century BC. After several civil wars it finally collapsed altogether and Rome ended up under the dictatorship of the emperors for the next 500 years in the west, and some 1,200 years in the east.
An ancient Republic was just not capable of ruling a far flung empire.
Plus the fact that every civilization in the world, ALL of them, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, was a Monarchy of one sort or another during the Dark Ages and the early Medieval period.
So why oh why does every civ in the game become a Republic before the Middle Ages?
And how on earth can you have a feudal society with Knights under a representative government? The two are the complete opposite of each other!
Just because its in a game, doesnt mean that it is right.
(XIII: I think it is a somewhat historical question. For a large part of the twentieth century Britain and America have justified their actions on the basis that they are democracies, and it is 'the will of the people'. When in fact it isn't always....)
