When did you realize that city-states are most logical, most natural form of government?

ANY FORM OF STATE IS NOT NATURAL, BUT CONTRANATURAL; IF STATES WERE NATURAL, PLANTS, AND ANIMALS, WOULD BE ABLE TO FORM, AND LIVE IN, THEM.

Reading about the Roman Republic, Greek Polei, and Venice make this pretty obvious. "Nationalist" sentiment is less artificial and requires less propaganda. Elites are more loyal to the common weal, partly because it is better aligned with their own interests and partly because it is tougher to get away with defection/graft. I think the last point is most important.

I remember Greece one time having leagues .

and then they died being invaded by Romans.

>ANY FORM OF STATE IS NOT NATURAL
wrong, humans form states, humans are animals, therefore they are natural
> IF STATES WERE NATURAL, PLANTS, AND ANIMALS, WOULD BE ABLE TO FORM, AND LIVE IN, THEM.
>what are beehives
>what are ant colonies
>what are primate hierarchies

Bump

>wasting your time replying to a known moron

Moron.

Nigga you right (not user you replied to)

how powerful would New York be if it was a city-state?

let's say, for convenience's and fun's sake, this state also includes north Jersey, Westchester/Rockland County, and Long Island

When I realized that nations are relatively fleeting, but cities last and last. What is the Italian state compared to Rome? What is modern Egypt compared to Cairo? What is the nation of China compared to Beijing? Do not put your faith in Nations. They are built to fall. The city lives on.

You are retarded...

>humans form states

Yep

>humans are animals

Nop

>therefore they are natural

Nop

>what are beehives
>what are ant colonies
>what are primate hierarchies

Societies.

>>humans are animals
>Nop

>tfw we haven't reverted to city states

it'd be so fucking good, especially in the post-expansionist era we're in now, literally what is the point of nation-states? just make more states lmao

>European countryside is becoming more wild as more and more people move to cities.
>City states are on the table again
>nationalism is absolute and having its last hurrah as it crashes and burns.
>City states happen
>The countryside is now the wild with some random communes dotted around.

I'm ok with this.

cite your data

shortly after my MMR jab

>He hasn't perused the UN International Degeneracy Index

>Until your city decides to steamroll Emperor McConquest's army, bury their superior numbers in mass graves and take their resources as loot

Happy 1. August everyone

early, I am blessed and live in a de facto city state. Direct democratic city republic is best.

About year ago. I was thinking what would actually happen if the central government just simply ceased to exist suddenly, and it would be probably nothing. Everything is either done or could be easily done by a city itself.

>Nice City-State Federation you've got there
>Would be a shame if I....managed to find out a traitor among you and subvert your or something.

Alternatively:
>Be city-state federation.
>One of the more powerful states will try to exert its will/be accused of imperialism by members.
>Federation ruined.

Remind me who was it that forced you to become eternally neutral?

>forced
You mean payed 700'000 Écu sol to do so?

That's not how it went down now, was it?

And please, Switzerland isn't a city state, its a federal republic.

Not really, 1513 Louis II. de La Trémoille and the French army get proper fucked at Novara, Swiss then march to Dijon and sack the town.
1515, François I takes over from Louis XII and wins at Marignano. So far so good, Switzerland still has plenty of troops and the war could go on.

As a surprise to all he then agrees to pay 700'000 Écu to the Swiss ( thats aroound 2.5 tons of pure gold) plus annual payments of 10'000's Écu for a political and military alliance with the Confederation and especially the right to hire Swiss troops.

This is one hell of a smart move, by hiring the Swiss, Francois takes a irrational player from the game in Italy, secures his eastern flank, and with the troops he gets he is able to press his politics in Italy and Swiss troops will serve as the core of France's armed forces for the next 250 years, faithfully killing the enemies of France at a discount rate.

What if my city-state doesn't reside within mountains and is, you know, actually a city state and not a reasonably sized country?

Venice was one of the medieval military super powers. So was the Hansa
Meritocracy and republican militia make for efficient armies. Also, better equipment and supply as a center of industry.

We have international law now.

Shit argument, might makes right. Always did.

>Mayor Emperor McConquest living next door decides to steamroll your city with his vastly superior numbers and resources

What are some comfy city states to live in?

he lost in the italian wars though and got captured by charles V though. was it worth it in the end? also, geneva served as the hub of calvinist revolution, and the propaganda printed from there is the direct cause of the french religious wars.

don't forget the low countries as well. ghent, bruges, ypres and other cities were de-facto city-states

But then who administrates the farmlands?

yes federations are not always successful, but they did remarkably well. In the case of Roman expansion, ALL states eventually fell to the romans, regardless if they were federations or kingdoms. Same goes for other states. Federations have as good a track record as any other state with its own military.

city-states tended to rule over the surrounding countryside and ruled these lands like any other state. of course, mercantile city-states also imported food in exchange for their manufactured goods. see, for example, the medieval low countries, which imported wheat from the baltic and northern france to feed its population and used its own agricultural land to make specialized products such as dairy goods and beer

>lose one city
>literally lose the state

yea fuck that

Any examples on Asian city states?

So how did they come to be displaced by nation-states?

Did they?

What's really the difference between a modern republic and a city-state league anyway?

Also, any good games about this topic?

Singapore
Hong Kong and Macau (kinda)
Silk Road cities in ancient Central Asia (i.e. Samarkand), although it times they were only de facto autonomous while technically a part of some far-flung empire
Mesopotamia was basically a bunch of city-states (i.e. Babylon)

Nation-states could muster more people and resources to create a bigger economy
city-states are great for commerce, but once large-scale industry and manufacturing became possible, it also required larger countries to harness their power

>What's really the difference between a modern republic and a city-state league anyway?

Modern republics are typically more centralized in power, more uniform in law/policy, and subdivide along larger lines (regions/provinces) than smaller municipalities

...

What do you think humans are? Plants? Shrooms?

Why bother with city states when we have municipalities?

City-states that ban together and more power than those that don't.

So... Yeah, neither most logical nor most natural. Groups of folks, both logically and naturally, band together for protection and power. Nations are just collections of city states that have done so and/or have been founded with that in mind.

Venice wasn't a city state. It was born as a federation and it developed into as big a state than Switzerland.

>Venice wasn't a city state.
10/10 retard.

>22nd of July
>22nd of May
>22nd of March
>11th of April
>all happened in 1499
They really liked dubs didn't they?

He's kinda right you know. Venice the state is older than Venice the city.

>call yourself a city state
>occupy more land than actual states

Do you even realize that the very concept of city state and its definition is pretty much flame war material in political sciences?
People have been debating WHAT is a city state and WHICH countries qualify for decades, with consensus only ever decreasing.
Considering the complexity of modern markets, city states have no reason to exist nowadays beyond trade metropolis that couldn't ever make up more than a minuscule percentage of land.

SHANSHAN

>He's kinda right you know.
Not really. Venice is kinda role model of a city state. sure they conquered quite a bit of country, but then so did others, Genoa, Bern. Also, Venice wasn't a federation, but a aristocratic republic.

Strictly speaking conquering "quite a bit of country", especially if it includes other cities, is a disqualifier from city state status.
Venice and the others you named are invariably considered regional states after they start conquering their neighbouring communes.
Also, while Venice did evolve into an aristocratic republic at the end of the 13th century, it started out as a federation of coastal and island towns in the Venetian Lagoon, around two dozen of them, each of which used to elect a tribune to lead them and amongst them one was chosen (or selected by the byzantine exarch when the empire was influential enough) to lead the league. This changed when the government was reformed into the Commune Veneciarum in 1143. I suppose that you could call Venice a city state at that point, but already from the beginning of the 13th century Venice started subjugating its neighbours, so it's a real fucking brief period of time.

>Venice is kinda role model of a city state
Which is really fucking dumb from all points of view. Popular history a shit.

I also did point out that in cases such as that, federations eventually end up with non-city state entities like empires or national republics.

Discounting western made colony city-states like Singapore and HK, you had.
>The Silk Route City States from what is now Xinjiang and Central Asia.
>The Pyu City States in what is now Burma.
>Ayutthaya.
>The Khmers started as a city state until Angkor had a meme empire going
>Singapore before Raffles was actually a malay city state.
>Brunei until it became an empire.
>Pre-Colonial Flips had some. Manila - Philippines' current capital- used to be its own kingdom.
>Also in shitloads in Indonesia following the breakup of the Hindu Empires there.
>Koreans had a brief moment of city-states in their history with the Kaya Confederacy.

Oh I should also add the Kongsi Republics. Which started out as Chinese trading colonies that became states outright.

Interestingly: they're "private" states in that the ruling merchant families owned the country and governed it as well. It's a bit rather ancap really, the "republic" is an appellation attached to it by western scholars

>Loosing 50% of your army while the numerically and technologically superior enemy barely looses 10% is reasonable and can be recovered from easily
Sure man

you know why city states stopped existing, expecially in Italy? Because a few of them conquered the rest and subjected them to their rule.

>Because a few of them conquered the rest and subjected them to their rule.
Actually no, France and Spain conquered them.

Most fucking retarded thing I've ever read on this board

Its the ither way around dummy. Venice was a city before it became a territorial state in the early 1400s

Yakub's creation

Before even that, most of the autonomous city states were conquered by a few, more powerful city-states, like Milan, Venice, Florence, Mantua etc.

I unironically think that in 100 years city-states will be the norm. As technology advances we can put entire farms in a single building, along with a lot of other previously land-intensive utilities

I hope so.

>you will never live in a comfy northern european city state ruled by a philosopher king

I weep

in feudal times sure
now city states only exist if they have a gimmick

>Its the ither way around dummy.
You are now aware that the city of Venice was the third historical capital of the country of Venice, after Eraclea and Metamauco.
Rivoalto (modern day Venezia) only became the capital more than a century after the inauguration of the first doge.

Vatican, Monaco, Andorra
City states are actually more like county states

City states are actually not cities*

Strictly speaking, pic related and Vatican City are both city states. Do you think they share a form of government?
City state means fuck all outside of specific historical contexts. The modern meaning is muddled beyond usefulness and political scientists are always bickering about whether THIS or THAT country are or not city states.

The Roman republic, despite its size, was a city state.

>Vatican, Monaco
>comfy
They're both pretty shit user, because the first requires you to be an actual careerist priest or live in Rome, while the second is just a shit city covered in asphalt and always full of the worse kind of tourists.
I dunno about Andorra, never actually been.

Switzerland has some nice City republics, Geneva or Basel.

They're both nice, but I wouldn't call Geneva "comfy".

City states work best if you want a healthy democracy on steroids. Otherwise, no point desu.

>goes into perpetual war with neighboring city states

>Maximilian I
poor guy

interesting. but that was only the first century of the "city" and i suspect before the area had much economic relevance, which i think only started in the late 900s/early 1000s

>state: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

Bees, ants, and primates don't conduct politics or have governmental institutions.

It would be similar in power to Britain or the Netherlands.

>implying ants and bees don't have hierarchy
>implying the queen doesn't rule by force and can be displaced by force, force being politics by other means.
senpai...

don't have monarchy*

>i suspect before the area had much economic relevance
You suspect wrong. The area always had a strong economic relevance, with the likes of Patavium, Aquileia and Altinum being among the wealthiest cities in the roman empire. Its success had a lot to do with its strategic position, at one end of the Adriatic, close to the alpine and carsic passes, well served by a slew of navigable rivers crossing the Po Valley and a large lagoon serving as a gigantic natural harbour.
The locals always had a strong merchantile and naval tradition, as remarked from the likes of Cassiodorus who describes the large number of ships and merchant/artisan guilds (scholae) in the area.
I can point you also to Adrian I (the pope) who sought to punish the unruly and dangerously well established venetian merchants by banishing them from the archdiocese of Ravenna and the exarcate at large, and Constantine VII who in his De administrando imperio names Torcello (one of many lagoon towns) a very wealthy and well established market. Sure, business skyrocketed from the 9th century onward, but that was more due to the carolingian and ottonian renaissance than any previous state of poverty.
In fact you could easily argue that the only reason the area ever got the chance to grow into an independent country was due to its wealth, which kept the byzantines focused on protecting it from the ever encroaching germs. A poor area wouldn't have managed to hold out against the repeated frankish attempts to annex it.