History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[LordDemiurge]

which lends itself to a very traditional form and shape of government.

Jokes aside but what necessarily can be called a 'traditional' form of government?

I'm a bit confused as this society both distrusts mob rule and central government power. Then what it's between? Some form of libertarian minarchy? An 'every town its own republic' type deal where the government offloads as much a decision making as possible to its lower tiers?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Jokes aside but what necessarily can be called a 'traditional' form of government?

I'm a bit confused as this society both distrusts mob rule and central government power. Then what it's between? Some form of libertarian minarchy? An 'every town its own republic' type deal where the government offloads as much a decision making as possible to its lower tiers?

Skallagrim is talking about monarchy here, or at least the Roman variant on it. The Princeps essentially wielded a lot of power but not absolute power, as is much the same for other monarchies. Indeed, until the Enlightenment, monarchical states had far less power than modern governments.

 

[Skallagrim]

Jokes aside but what necessarily can be called a 'traditional' form of government?

I'm a bit confused as this society both distrusts mob rule and central government power. Then what it's between? Some form of libertarian minarchy? An 'every town its own republic' type deal where the government offloads as much a decision making as possible to its lower tiers?

Skallagrim is talking about monarchy here, or at least the Roman variant on it. The Princeps essentially wielded a lot of power but not absolute power, as is much the same for other monarchies. Indeed, until the Enlightenment, monarchical states had far less power than modern governments.

Tradition, especially in a macro-historical context, is "those cultural, social and political forms to which we always return". Human civilisational history being the product of human nature, you can discern the perennials. Some form of monarchy (whether referenced by that name or not) is practically the norm. Democracy, as understood nowadays (meaning mass democracy) is invariably a brief exception that results in demagoguery, and then despotism. Absolute monarchy, however, is likewise an exception, as is 'pure' aristocratic rule. (The reason, very briefly summarised, is that unchecked kings become tyrants, and unchecked aristocrats become plutocrats -- in both cases, the lack of balance upends the system.)

Throughout history, the norm for political primacy has been a balance between monarchs and nobles. That's historically 'normal', and therefore it is the 'traditional' form in practically every society. Of course, the ways in which this can be set up do vary, and generally speaking, the most stable forms are the most legitimate ones. In the West, our culture, the basis of government remained remarkable legitimate for a thousand years. That's a good track record. This was done without veering into an unbalanced situation. Dynasties were replaced, bordes were shifted, and crowns changed hands -- but the underlying system and its assumptions remained acknowledged by most everyone.

Two secrets to this success. One, the Church. It provided a third leg, making a tripod, which is really very stable. If the monarch or the nobles or the clergy made a play for too much power, the other two would unite against the too-ambitions one. This is a self-balancing system. Two, the relative 'openness' of the elite. Western aristocracy was more open to entry than most examples. commoners could ascend through their deeds, and be ennobled. More easily so than in most of history. This keeps the aristocracy honest. The same, by default, was true of the Church, whose clergymen weren't appointed by the secular power, either, and could (at least in principle) come from any background.

This remarkable stability was upset by the Reformation (which would have been a good thing, if it'd actually been a reformation, rather than a schism), because that opened the door for secular influence over the ecclesiastical power. balance was lost. Three centuries later, the world violently collapsed into an age of revolution-- in whose wake we still live.

Traditional government, then, is the rejection of the 'modern' ideas of government, and a return to stability. No more mass democracy, but keep in mind that an 'open aristocracy' and a 'noble republic' can be practically indistinguishable. This suggests that a more tradtional conception of republicanism can easily be retained; in fact, that's probably inevitable. It's not like all of the last centuries will be erased. The notion of decentralism and lots of local governance is right on the mark. The citizenry has a voice in local affairs, and most affairs are local. Meanwhile, at the 'top end' of the system, all politics are court politics, and they rarely interfere in the daily life of regular people.

That links to the distrust of both mob rule and central government power. Right now, mass democracy is heading towards a crash. It also goes hand-in-hand with an ever-expanding government, that is involved in your daily life to an unprecedented degree. That involvement is still relatively benign at present, but when the gloves come off, it'll be something you don't want. (Think of China's social credit system.) So when this has finally run its course, I'm pretty sure the people will welcome a distant ruler that they never have to meet; whose taxes are not too burdensome; whose involvement in their daily existence is frankly minimal.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

the rich

To Hell with them. They abused their wealth too often and thus must be neutralized.

 

[Cherico]

To Hell with them. They abused their wealth too often and thus must be neutralized.

I don't actually have a problem with the rich, I just think that too many of them have over stepped their bounds. A lot of them have earned their wealth in this world or have been non offensive with what they have. The problem is the ones who are busy bodies and poke and prod were they are unneeded and unwanted.

Also any company that says their your family is way too cultlike.

 

[stevep]

Zyobot

Interesting ideas although accepting your initial assumptions and a imperial state centred on the current US emerges as the overwhelming power I'm not so sure that it would stay ruggedly individualist as your suggesting. Rome itself had deeply embedded values in support of the republic and a wide range of measures to protect the rights of the small farmers who made up the core of the state but after the prolonged civil wars that - coupled with earlier territorial expansion and social disruption - destroyed the republic most of those core values disappeared and it was increasingly the competition between the old elite and the centralized military power, won by the latter that dictated future developments. That had relatively little of the earlier values despite attempts by Augustus and other figures to try and resurrect them.

Zobot

Just to clarify why the sad? That you disagree with what I say or think its a grim outcome?

Steve

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I don't actually have a problem with the rich, I just think that too many of them have over stepped their bounds. A lot of them have earned their wealth in this world or have been non offensive with what they have. The problem is the ones who are busy bodies and poke and prod were they are unneeded and unwanted.

Also any company that says their your family is way too cultlike.

And you have to remember that most rich people/millionaires, are essentially the modern version of country gentleman. They’re harmless and have no intention to do harm.

Even most billionaires are content to keep to themselves.

 

[stevep]

Jokes aside but what necessarily can be called a 'traditional' form of government?

I'm a bit confused as this society both distrusts mob rule and central government power. Then what it's between? Some form of libertarian minarchy? An 'every town its own republic' type deal where the government offloads as much a decision making as possible to its lower tiers?

What Skallagrim refers to as traditional government is a narrow oligarchy with power monopolised by a small group of self-proclaimed elites. Generally with a monarchy, aristocracy and religious group in a rocky imbalance of power with assorted groups struggling for domination and generally a lot of instability as things swing backwards and forwards. Very poor for the bulk of the population but to him they don't matter. It also makes for a a socially and technologically pretty rigid society which will last with no real chance or improvement until something breaks the system.

 

[Zyobot]

Zobot

Just to clarify why the sad? That you disagree with what I say or think its a grim outcome?

Steve

Grim outcome, mostly.

That said, while I can't rule anything out theoretically, I'd still say that the US having a Constitution that — while not particularly well-understood by the average American, unfortunately — is nonetheless regarded with reverence and (unlike the Mos Maiorum) was explicitly written down by the Founders would discourage an "Augustus" from erasing the values it enshrines completely.

Certainly, I'd expect them to write their own, more "imperial" edition and commission their own take on America's traditional mythology that the population more or less deems "good enough" and leaves it at that. But at the very least, "Augustus" would need superficial credibility to come across as an authentic restorer who's come to bring back the Republic, hence a reaffirmation of general "liberty-mindedness" and rugged individualism that the US was explicitly founded on. So... much more individualistic and constitutional than Octavian's Principate ever was, precisely because America was founded on the pursuit of freedom and rights (which would no doubt be reinforced by a well-armed population that has tired of "Caesarist" strongman rule).

 

[Cherico]

And you have to remember that most rich people/millionaires, are essentially the modern version of country gentleman. They’re harmless and have no intention to do harm.

Even most billionaires are content to keep to themselves.

Like I said I wish no harm upon the vast majority of the rich.

Its the clinging over weaning control freaks I have problems with, but those are a problem no matter their wealth level.

 

[Batrix2070]

What Skallagrim refers to as traditional government is a narrow oligarchy with power monopolised by a small group of self-proclaimed elites. Generally with a monarchy, aristocracy and religious group in a rocky imbalance of power with assorted groups struggling for domination and generally a lot of instability as things swing backwards and forwards. Very poor for the bulk of the population but to him they don't matter. It also makes for a a socially and technologically pretty rigid society which will last with no real chance or improvement until something breaks the system.

This form of government, in one form or another, has survived for more than 1,000 years, and even lasted longer. So, yes, it agrees it is in practice this. As you can see, it works very well.

So I'll ask you frankly, where are the flaws?

 

[King Arts]

This form of government, in one form or another, has survived for more than 1,000 years, and even lasted longer. So, yes, it agrees it is in practice this. As you can see, it works very well.

So I'll ask you frankly, where are the flaws?

You complain about modern oligarchy yet idolize the Ancient oligarchy where the elites were just as corrupt.

 

[Batrix2070]

Grim outcome, mostly.

That said, while I can't rule anything out theoretically, I'd still say that the US having a Constitution that — while not particularly well-understood by the average American, unfortunately — is nonetheless regarded with reverence and (unlike the Mos Maiorum) was explicitly written down by the Founders would discourage an "Augustus" from erasing the values it enshrines completely.

Certainly, I'd expect them to write their own, more "imperial" edition and commission their own take on America's traditional mythology that the population more or less deems "good enough" and leaves it at that. But at the very least, "Augustus" would need superficial credibility to come across as an authentic restorer who's come to bring back the Republic, hence a reaffirmation of general "liberty-mindedness" and rugged individualism that the US was explicitly founded on. So... much more individualistic and constitutional than Octavian's Principate ever was, precisely because America was founded on the pursuit of freedom and rights (which would no doubt be reinforced by a well-armed population that has tired of "Caesarist" strongman rule).

I rather think it will be something like a PLC. Which, despite appearances, means well. Formally there was oppression of peasants, de facto, despite the "lack of rights" peasants did not revolt because de facto they had nothing to revolt against. Their lords of the nobility were more like godfathers (even quite literally, often a Polish nobleman had peasant children as godchildren) than steorotypical French nobles. Hence, they tried to make it good for both sides, which later had side effects when Poland was torn apart. The entire social order was distorted by the laws of the partitioners seeking to "civilize" the Poles.

As with getting into the nobility, in theory it was difficult and demanding. In practice it was so that everything was taken on the word of honor, or more figuratively. Safeguards against entering the nobility through the back door were as effective as those to pay for the use of Winrar.

As with the oppression of the peasants, in theory they could do little, in practice? It didn't pay off for anyone to put them into practice. Officially, peasants were not allowed to leave the village more than once a year. In practice, who cared? The lord who profited from it? Not much. He even had a vested interest in it. The peasants who could make money? Neither.

Honestly? Would not be the least bit surprised if the election as the new Emperor of America, would be very similar to the free election to the Polish throne. Of course, with American characteristics, that is, the nobles of the land, gather for a meeting. They vote on who will represent them and give them instructions on which nobleman to vote for. Within the sacred college of electors.

Since the Polish King, despite being elected in this way, could say By God's Grace, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Prince of Ruthenia, Prussia, et cetera, et cetera.

So too the Emperor of America, or By God's Grace the Emperor of America, King of Canada, Grand Duke of New England, Florida and Texas, Prince of California, Virginia et cetera, et cetera.

You know such topics, especially since according to the designers of this old Polish system, Poland was a Republic and the King of Poland, Princeps.

 

[Batrix2070]

You complain about modern oligarchy yet idolize the Ancient oligarchy where the elites were just as corrupt.

Oligarchy, oligarchy unequal. The problem is not in their existence. Because they will always be there, the problem rather lies in the illusion that getting rid of them, is a good idea. By doing so, you can only remove them into the shadows. Which ironically helps them, because they no longer have to answer directly for their actions.

 

[LordDemiurge]

A lot of them have earned their wealth in this world or have been non offensive with what they have.

That depends really.

It's usually the kids that are the problem, on the account they tend to assume they earned their parent's wealth.

Some of them are humble, others are not in my experience. I've seen a girl jump spots in academics to steal the valedictorian spot of another girl. Who more or less got bullied by the administration into compliance all because her dad had too many strings.

While I have mixed feelings about open aristocracy, hereditary aristocracy and 'old money' I'm deeply distrustful of to be generous. I understand that medieval nobles did take honor seriously, but its a case of there being too many soft limitations but not enough legal and official means to remove them or hold them accountable.

Which is arguably the opposite problem today, where the official means of holding the elite accountable, exist, but are just straight up ignored or bypassed because there is zero 'honor' in holding oneself to any kind of standard.

but keep in mind that an 'open aristocracy' and a 'noble republic' can be practically indistinguishable. This suggests that a more tradtional conception of republicanism can easily be retained

That makes a lot of sense. Right now I'm imagining something like Starship Troopers and Battletech.

I'm imagining, ideally atleast, voting rights being a privilege based on military and civil service. With a host of mandatory civic duties necessary for citizens to keep it. Instead of the apathetic way we dole it out today.

So too the Emperor of America, or By God's Grace the Emperor of America, King of Canada, Grand Duke of New England, Florida and Texas, Prince of California, Virginia et cetera, et cetera.

It's fun to speculate on what noble titles this society will. However, I predict this American Empire will probably still cling to their mythos of being a land without kings and those degenerate Old World nobility. The image of a 'monarch' being a gilded effete despot is just too embedded in what this country is.

Generally I can imagine they'll disdain a lot of common feudal titles as being too against their civic mythos. The titles will have the same denotation, but renamed to have different connotations. There might archons, governors, consuls, patricians, magistrates and so on.

'Emperor' might reek too much of royalty. Neo-Augustus might actually just keep the title of President. Or if the title of President becomes too tainted by the idea of mob tyranny, we'll have something fanciful like the title of 'Sovereign of the American Republic.'

Their lords of the nobility were more like godfathers (even quite literally, often a Polish nobleman had peasant children as godchildren)

Could I get the sauce on this if you have it?

I'm not doubting you, but this sounds fascinating and I want to read more on it.

Also do you have any other recommendations on what to read to get a better idea of the noble-peasant relationship. Its something I'm interested in but I have a hard time finding good sources on.

 

[Batrix2070]

It's fun to speculate on what noble tites of this society will be. However, given that this American Empire will probably still cling to their mythos of being a land without kings and those degenerate Old World nobility. The image of a 'monarch' being a gilded effete despot is just too embedded in what this country is.

Generally I can imagine they'll disdain a lot of common feudal titles as being too against their civic mythos. The titles will have the same denotation, but renamed to have different connotations. There might archons, governors, consuls, patricians, magistrates and so on.

'Emperor' might reek too much of royalty. Neo-Augustus might actually just keep the title of President. Or if the title of President becomes too tainted by the idea of mob tyranny, we'll have something fanciful like the title of 'Sovereign of the American Republic.'

Well, it is as possible. Especially since originally Count, Prince and so on were purely administrative titles. They simply became hereditary over time as a result of the weakening of central authority.
Not everywhere of course, in Poland there were neither Counts nor Dukes in the Western sense. There were Castellans and Voivodes, respectively. Despite attempts, these titles remained administrative titles, although they were de facto equivalents of those previously mentioned.
There were, of course, Princes, but de facto they meant the relatives of the Jagiellonians and the descendants of the Rurikkovichs living in the territories of the Republic. They were Princes, just like that, and they were the only ones entitled to title themselves as per prince.

What's more, the creator of the Republic, Jan Zamojski, held such titulature in contempt. That's why the hierarchy and all the associated entourage never came into being. Nevertheless, this did not prevent the equivalent of this from functioning, precisely within the framework of Castellanin, Starosta and Voivode or administration. And so it will most likely be in America, the quasi-noble titles will be the administrative titles already present. For us it will not be obvious, for them it is.

So there may be a President, but de facto in the sense of Emperor.

Could I get the sauce on this if you have it?

I'm not doubting you, but this sounds fascinating and I want to read more on it.

Also do you have any other recommendations on what to read to get a better idea of the noble-peasant relationship. Its something I'm interested in but I have a hard time finding good sources on.

It's more of a collection, information from Polish history majors, popular science blogs and so on. So, I rather can't give you that.

Although I must add in fairness, vassal-master, serf-master relations are de facto unique to any country in Europe. In detail, a lot of differences between the two are revealed, enough to note that the current and popular picture of these relations, is heavily exaggerated and has traces of revolutionary propaganda.

 

[Zyobot]

Quite the salient points from @LordDemiurge, but because this one's particularly germane to my own take:

It's fun to speculate on what noble tites of this society will be. However, given that this American Empire will probably still cling to their mythos of being a land without kings and those degenerate Old World nobility. The image of a 'monarch' being a gilded effete despot is just too embedded in what this country is.

Generally I can imagine they'll disdain a lot of common feudal titles as being too against their civic mythos. The titles will have the same denotation, but renamed to have different connotations. There might archons, governors, consuls, patricians, magistrates and so on.

'Emperor' might reek too much of royalty. Neo-Augustus might actually just keep the title of President. Or if the title of President becomes too tainted by the idea of mob tyranny, we'll have something fanciful like the title of 'Sovereign of the American Republic.'

Little fanciful and "spoiler-ish", but in my latest outline, Neo-Augustus unironically assumes the title of "Lord Executive". In large part, it's a reaction to how "POTUS" was disgraced by Neo-Sulla's excesses — and consequently, fell out of favor in much the same way that "Consul" lost its prestige with the demise of the Roman Republic.

But the other (and more important) component to this is how my take on Imperial America is more of a voluntary, pan-Western mercantile league with various parallels to the Hanseatic example. That is, an easygoing confederation in which a smorgasbord of locales, mini-states, and “free zones” assume a voluntary membership where they agree to provide payment (and perhaps, manpower) in exchange for common defense, free trade and travel, and general adherence to the Lord Executive's new and improved Constitution.

Granted, it funds quite a few agencies and functions the original Hanseatic League did not: a league-wide military, treasury, and administrative directorate, for starters. Otherwise, it's very "transactional" and business-minded in its outlook, which even extends to the various titles it grants ranking officials and the prominence of American merchant families in its middle and upper echelons. Hence, the head-of-state as "Lord Executive", in the sense of Neo-Augustus (and of course, his successors) being the CEO and public face of the American mercantile league (more or less).

Indeed, a distinctly "American" approach to becoming the Mercantile Empire of the West, given the US's distinct entrepreneurial spirit and tendency towards commercial ventures as it stands. To paraphrase Calvin Coolidge: "The chief business of the American people is business." — an adage that Neo-Augustus (or at least, the version who emerges on top in my outline) very much takes to heart.

 

[stevep]

Grim outcome, mostly.

That said, while I can't rule anything out theoretically, I'd still say that the US having a Constitution that — while not particularly well-understood by the average American, unfortunately — is nonetheless regarded with reverence and (unlike the Mos Maiorum) was explicitly written down by the Founders would discourage an "Augustus" from erasing the values it enshrines completely.

Certainly, I'd expect them to write their own, more "imperial" edition and commission their own take on America's traditional mythology that the population more or less deems "good enough" and leaves it at that. But at the very least, "Augustus" would need superficial credibility to come across as an authentic restorer who's come to bring back the Republic, hence a reaffirmation of general "liberty-mindedness" and rugged individualism that the US was explicitly founded on. So... much more individualistic and constitutional than Octavian's Principate ever was, precisely because America was founded on the pursuit of freedom and rights (which would no doubt be reinforced by a well-armed population that has tired of "Caesarist" strongman rule).

Many thanks for clarifying.

Possibly although the assumption would be that the US has gone through several decades of widespread conflict and for someone like Augustus to get something like the Principate would need a lot more control, de facto if not de jure over the population. By definition if the comparison is with Augustus you do have a military strongman in power. Its going to depend on the nature of the intervening period of intense conflict as to what if any restraints ordinary people in this US have on the ruler - other than attempts at assassination, which are likely to be met with serious brutality as is any broader local revolt.

If there is a serious check on the power of the emperor then its defintely a major difference from what happened with Rome in the move from 'Republican' to Imperial state. That's not a great problem for me because as I said I have doubts on whether such a parallel is possible in the current circumstance but it would mean a contradiction of the very close cyclic history which I think is the basic idea of this thread.

 

[stevep]

This form of government, in one form or another, has survived for more than 1,000 years, and even lasted longer. So, yes, it agrees it is in practice this. As you can see, it works very well.

So I'll ask you frankly, where are the flaws?

Extremely inefficient. It can only really operate while competitive regions are in the same mess. Your throwing away pretty much the bulk of the capacity of 90-95% of your population. Not to mention the frequent if often medium/low levels of violence and destruction as the elements of that elite squabble over shares of the cake.

Also the longer such 'elite' groups are unchallenged other than to a limited degree by their peers they will simply grow more complacent and corrupt. The old adage of power corrupting.

 

[stevep]

Oligarchy, oligarchy unequal. The problem is not in their existence. Because they will always be there, the problem rather lies in the illusion that getting rid of them, is a good idea. By doing so, you can only remove them into the shadows. Which ironically helps them, because they no longer have to answer directly for their actions.

I don't think that anyone believes we have gotten rid of them. Its just that the current ones have accrued too much power and the system has become too lax as a result for restraints to be applied as much as they should. Their not been pushed into the shadows and there are a lot more restraints on them than for medieval monarchy, clergy or aristocrats. They just aren't being applied.