What if ancient Greece hadn't invented the early version of democracy?

[Agent327]

While some places, like the early United States, as well as thinkers like Montesquieu and Rousseau, did actively seek to emulate parts of both Greek democracy and the Roman republic, it can't really be argued that Geneva, Ragusa, Novgorod, or the Low Countries did anything more than be more adaptive to socio-economic dynamics than the entrenched monarchies of Europe.

Actually, the Dutch Republic actively sought a monarch to rule, but nothing came of it. When Holland finally did become a monarchy socio-economics also payed little part compared to European balance-of-power politics, creating the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a buffer against future French expansion. (Always prepare for the last war...)

 

[dutchfire]

This charming felllow you mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis,_Duke_of_Anjou
He got a bit of a mixed reception.

 

[Agent327]

No, I was referring to Leicester, actually. But there were multiple candidates, yes.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not that that's exactly relevant to this thread, of course. Or maybe it is. Maybe one of the fundamental issues here is: was the emergence of democracy as we know it (more or less) inevitable, or at least not very evitable, no matter what happened? It doesn't seem to me that this is a question with an obvious answer.

I think there's a difference between asking if modern democracy was inevitable, and asking about the influence of Greek democracy on modern democracy. The OP seemed to be asking the latter, rather than the former, or at least if he was asking the former he was choosing an extremely bizarre way of doing so. (I mean, why specify Greek democracy rather than Babylonian sacred kingship or Norse chieftainship or any other pre-modern form of government?)

I think the idea that history moves towards any sort of goal has been shown to be the product of selective and often simplistic readings of history; Marx' in particular.

Do you mean that Marx made a selective and simplistic reading of history, or that selective and simplistic readings are made of Marx's history? Because if you're claiming the former, I'm going to have to accuse you of the latter.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm prepared to say upfront that I have a very basic understanding of Marxism, but my understanding of it is that he posits stages through which all societies must evolve: I think that is simplistic. If that is the case then the former, if not the latter.

 

[Agent327]

I think there's a difference between asking if modern democracy was inevitable, and asking about the influence of Greek democracy on modern democracy. The OP seemed to be asking the latter, rather than the former, or at least if he was asking the former he was choosing an extremely bizarre way of doing so. (I mean, why specify Greek democracy rather than Babylonian sacred kingship or Norse chieftainship or any other pre-modern form of government?)

Do you mean that Marx made a selective and simplistic reading of history, or that selective and simplistic readings are made of Marx's history? Because if you're claiming the former, I'm going to have to accuse you of the latter.

Seriously? Your post shows clearlry how a Marxist approach can result in selective reading - while missing the points being offered.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Care to elaborate on how his post shows that a "marxist approach" can result in "selective reading?"

 

[Traitorfish]

(I wasn't even aware that I was taking a "Marxist approach". )

 

[Agent327]

This was posted:

I think the idea that history moves towards any sort of goal has been shown to be the product of selective and often simplistic readings of history; Marx' in particular.

Now lets's have a look at that comment again:

I think there's a difference between asking if modern democracy was inevitable, and asking about the influence of Greek democracy on modern democracy. The OP seemed to be asking the latter, rather than the former, or at least if he was asking the former he was choosing an extremely bizarre way of doing so. (I mean, why specify Greek democracy rather than Babylonian sacred kingship or Norse chieftainship or any other pre-modern form of government?)


Do you mean that Marx made a selective and simplistic reading of history, or that selective and simplistic readings are made of Marx's history? Because if you're claiming the former, I'm going to have to accuse you of the latter.

(We'll ignore the at the end.)

First, let's have a look at that "extremely bizarre way" in the first paragraph. What seems more extremely bizarre is naming "Babylonian sacred kingship or Norse chieftainship". I've no idea why this is mentioned, since neither have any significant effect on government forms of the present, nor do they inspire any, as far as I'm aware of. So completely iirrelevant both to the OP as to the ensuing discussion.

But let's have a look at that second paragraph. How exactly does it relate to:

I think the idea that history moves towards any sort of goal has been shown to be the product of selective and often simplistic readings of history; Marx' in particular.

It doesn't question the statement, rather, au contraire, raises two entirely new statements that merely suggest that there's something amiss with the quoted sentence without actually providing any argument for it being so.

So, what it does, is raise doubt about the truth of the quoted statement without actually discussing the content thereof.

If that isn't selective reading, I don't know what is. (And yes, that is typical of a "Marxist" approach, though I doubt Marx himself would agree with such an "unscientific" attitude.)

 

[Masada]

JEELEN has all the historical wit and understanding of a dead fish, a fact that has been demonstrated time and time again now.

Moderator Action: Is this really necessary? Please participate in the discussion instead of flaming other members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Agent327]

Thanks for the relevant comment there... I think you should visit Humor& Jokes more often.

 

[Traitorfish]

This was posted:



Now lets's have a look at that comment again:



(We'll ignore the at the end.)

First, let's have a look at that "extremely bizarre way" in the first paragraph. What seems more extremely bizarre is naming "Babylonian sacred kingship or Norse chieftainship". I've no idea why this is mentioned, since neither have any significant effect on government forms of the present, nor do they inspire any, as far as I'm aware of. So completely iirrelevant both to the OP as to the ensuing discussion.

Do they have any more or less impact than Athenian democracy? Just because one plays a larger part in certain fanciful narratives doesn't mean that it's influence on political practice is any greater.

But let's have a look at that second paragraph. How exactly does it relate to:

It doesn't question the statement, rather, au contraire, raises two entirely new statements that merely suggest that there's something amiss with the quoted sentence without actually providing any argument for it being so.

So, what it does, is raise doubt about the truth of the quoted statement without actually discussing the content thereof.

If that isn't selective reading, I don't know what is.

I don't see why you're ruling out that possibility.

 

[Flying Pig]

Care to elaborate on how his post shows that a "marxist approach" can result in "selective reading?"

It was a general warning rather than a specific address of his point itself - there's enough material in historical study that you can come up with just about any hypothesis as to its progression and find evidence to justify it. It's easy to view history as an inevitable progression towards greater freedom for the individual, for example, if we look at the decline of absolute monarchy, the growth of democracy, the abolition of slavery, civil rights for women and ethnic minorities, and so on - however, I'm not convinced that that's good enough.

I would be interested for TF to explain the Marxist approach to history a bit more fully, though, if he doesn't mind.

 

[Agent327]

Do they have any more or less impact than Athenian democracy? Just because one plays a larger part in certain fanciful narratives doesn't mean that it's influence on political practice is any greater.

Now that is a different question, and I totally agree with you. I'd personally say that Athenian democracy is overrated for its influence on other forms of government, specifically modern democracies. The Roman republic played a far greater part, and monarchy certainly shouldn't be underestimated, as it was the prevalent form of government throughout much of human history.

I don't see why you're ruling out that possibility.

You may not have noticed I employed the same semantic procedure as you did in your original comment. I'm not ruling anything out. That would be unscientific of me.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

EDIT: Never mind, that post made no sense.

 

[Einherjar777]

This wasn't a real democracy by the fact that only citizens voted which were only a part of the population with richness and not knowing how it is to work. Furthermore, like all these corruptions by the time with gold to have power
Democracy is an utopia because all don't have power, only the rich and most corrupted.
In old greece, slaves did all the work while the citizens thought and made their orgies like the romans.

 

[sophie]

Thread necro...to answer a question which was answered within the first 5 posts...

 

[Lord Baal]

Thread necro...to answer a question which was answered within the first 5 posts...

And to answer it incorrectly and incomprehensibly, no less.

 

[Tee Kay]

This wasn't a real democracy by the fact that only citizens voted which were only a part of the population with richness and not knowing how it is to work. Furthermore, like all these corruptions by the time with gold to have power
Democracy is an utopia because all don't have power, only the rich and most corrupted.
In old greece, slaves did all the work while the citizens thought and made their orgies like the romans.

So basically a bit like modern democracy.

 

[Antilogic]

I'm actually still trying to figure out all the different standards, so to speak, of defining the terms democracy and republic. Seems like every other thread like this that shows up adds another definition to the pile.