I want a bit more political variety to my game /tg

If the Macedonians were Greeks then the Byzantines are also definitely Greeks.

Athenian style direct democracies and Spartan style oligarchies might be around.

it doesnt
theres a reason theyre all English now

that's a fancy camel

>"meritocracy"

Do you want Hassans? Because this is how you get Hassans!

>"chinese"

One thing you definitely shouldn't forget about are Magocracies if spellcasting is existent in your world.
A Government led by Mages would be something between a Theocracy and a meritocratic Oligarchy.

>"via"

Or simply a military Junta....

I think that was his point that the Macedonians are not greeks and consider themselves to be different. much as the Byzantines consider themselves as Romans

When three idiots meet together...

Imperial China was run by meritocratic bureaucracy pretty much since the start of unified empire under Qin Huangdi. And even before that it was concentrated on getting best people to do the job, not the best born.
It had nothing to do with centralization, because it was your classic "delegate official from the capital and let him sort things out on his own" type of deal. Imperial exams, at least before Ming and Qing grinded them down to memorising things in the most literal way possible, were pretty efficient way of figuring out who should take what post and there was no real obstacle for anyone to get into the imperial bureaucracy. We are talking about times where everyone else was busy appointing their family or buying posts via wealth, a thing that ceased to be main-stay practice accepted by everyone only around mid-19th century for Europe.
Not to mention most of dynasties being started by low-borns and outright peasants like in case of Ming, with nobody complaining about it.

So you're the third idiot, huh?

What the fuck do you think centralization is? Central control. That doesn't mean that one person or one position or even one ministry needs to be personally in control of everything. It means that power is executed and seated in the center. You fucking said so yourself
>it was your classic "delegate official from the capital and let him sort things out on his own" type of deal
The very fact that the center has the authority and power, de jure and de facto, to issue officials to the provinces is a central tenet and significant amalgamation of centralized power.

Compare to the nearby polity of medieval Japan, from ~1200 to 1868. Despite nominal control from the center during which rulers of the provinces ostensibly ruled only at the convenience of the Shogunate (especially and most notably in the Edo period, 1600-1868), there was absolutely no way that the center would have been able to send out a governor or other official, even in an advisory capacity, to any of the provinces not directly under its control (unless overwhelming military force were brought to bear; a prospect demanding cooperation from other feudal lords).

In short, the fact that real decisions may have been made in the provinces rather than the capital does not disqualify Imperial China as a centralized state. The very fact that these provincial bureaucrats were delegated and issued by the capital is already a startling show of centralization, especially for the period, and both Chinese and Japanese political theory recognized and referred to this form of government as centralization, "郡県" a system of "centralized government based on districts and prefectures."

Anyways, I don't really think you're an idiot, but you called me one so I had to return the favor.

>there was no real obstacle for anyone to get into the imperial bureaucracy.

Except for the money and time needed to study and prepare for the exams. Even before later dynasties turned the civil service exams into glorified SATs, they still relied heavily on rote memorization and focused more on form over substance. At least the lower level ones certainly did.

Most people couldn't afford parking the kids behind a desk for most of their childhoods so they could study.

Psst, hey kid. Wanna introduce universal suffrage?

Small correction..

>Imperial China was run by absurd bureaucracy pretty much since the start of unified empire under Qin Huangdi. And even before that it was concentrated on getting best Taoist scholars to do the job, not the best born.

People were promoted based on how well they could do test that had nothing to do with the jobs they'd be doing and were mostly philosophy.

>Chinese bureaucracy
>Taoist
You had ONE job, you mong. One.

>Taoist
>not Daoist
You had ONE job etc etc

The Legalists are crying.

So let's compare:
>Billy is born from Bob and Alice, who are peasants
>No matter what happens, nothing can be done about his social status
>Billy dies a peasant too, siring new generation of peasants in the process
vs
>Libo is born from Lei and Zhexia, who are peasants
>If entire village saves money, they can put Libo for tutition
>He dies as low-ranking official in the other part of China
And we are comparing extremes here and still got a better results. The real comparison is between your classic middle class (no matter how you will define it), so people that in fact have funds, but not blood in case of feudalism. You know where that led eventually? To fucking French Revolution.

So who will be the 3rd?

>No matter what happens, nothing can be done about his social status
actually tons can be done about his social status
peasants are freemen unlike serfs and theoretically could rise to become wealthy merchants, or accomplished mercenaries, or priests, or even just move to a city and become an apprentice to a tradesman before rising up the ranks himself

>peasants are freemen

In my language there is not even a word to describe "freemen". Should ring you a bell how full of shit your statement is outside of context of English feudalism.
Currently on Channel 4: There is no unified feudalism and each region had own version of it

Basically a Clan is a gigantic family and their supporters that controls or are heavily associated with the territory they live in. Often led by an elder figure who is named chief of the clan. Clans look to support and advance their interests leading to rivalries with nearby clans

if they aren't serfs, they own the land they are farming on
so yes they are "free" men
where do you live?

>Feudal Europe had no social stigma for low-borns
What next? People being ok with bastards? Or maybe full suffrage?
Don't want to burst your bubble, but we reached this level of enlightment pretty recently. As in - less than a century.

>if they aren't serfs, they own the land they are farming on
See? Another bullshit of yours.
What makes you think a person that owns land is farming on it and not, say, using nearby peasants for that?

Son, if you want free men, go to nearest town. Don't you know that arbeit macht... wait, wrong, Stadtluft macht frei? And to move to town, you need to openly break your feudal obligation and the fact you are tied to the land. Not to mention ending up as a beggar in all cases, because you are an outsider with no connections and no other perspective than hard labour ahead.

So here go your dreams about "tons" that can be done.

>Feudal Europe had no social stigma for low-borns
where did i say that exactly
please quote the part in my post where i said that

>What makes you think a person that owns land is farming on it and not, say, using nearby peasants for that?
because thats what a free peasant is you idiot

You don't need to say that. You are living this magic fantasy that if Bob The Farmer moves from Villageville to Town City, he will no longer be Bob The Farmer.
Or how Bob The Farmer, getting rich SOMEHOW, won't be still treated like shit AND have zero laws, because he's not part of local landed nobility with titles. I don't know, it's like you never ever heard in your life about low-borns buying posts and/or getting titles via marriage, because otherwise they are treated like lepers, regardless of anything.

you seem to have this idea in your head that i believe medieval europe was a wonderful place to be as a peasant because you clearly didn't bother to read the discussion before vomiting your opinion all over the thread
i'm saying that, no, the mystical orient was not a wonderful place where anyone could be whatever they wanted unlike that barbaric hellhole of western europe where poor peasants were forced to be farmers forever no matter what, and that in fact both classes had similar social mobility

>Because I say so
Here, FTFY

How about this:
It's a crown land and peasants are farming for the king, so a glorifies version of basic feudal service
It's a ladifundium or something similar and peasants are farming for the owner
It's a land owned by local noble and the peasants are doing their service
It's a land owned by pretty much ANYONE but the peasant that works on it, and he has to both pay in cash and service, aka how the fucking tenant agriculture worked

But sure, the only people that owned land were those who worked on it.

Joining the shitstorm, but here:
>Any form of feudalism
>Social mobility
Pick one

>But sure, the only people that owned land were those who worked on it.
where did i say that
feel free to point out in my posts where i said the only people that owned land were those who worked on it

...very carefully

>Joining the shitstorm
how about you just fuck off instead
nobody asked for another uneducated idiot spewing retardation all over this already awful discussion

Yes, that totally explains why we needed shitload of bloody revolutions all over late 18th and most of 19th century to finally stop having society based on rigid classes and turning nobility into a thing from the past.
Because apparently people just didn't try hard enough to grab their feudal chance and use it for social mobility.

Idiots like you are the best testimony how modern people are absolutely unable to comprehend how much freedom they have and how they are easily giving them away for a small rise or false sense of security.

read
my
fucking
post
before
replying

>if they aren't serfs, they own the land they are farming on
How about here, you stupid cunt? I'm not even the other guy, but you are getting annoying with your "where did I say that". Nobody gives a fuck! It's an anonymous internet discussion and you are apparently not only trying to win it, but also intimidate people with quoting you, which in conversation would render them speechless, but here everything is written down.

Also, both of you - shut the fuck up already. It's a thread about OTHER modes of rule than feudalism, not two mouth-breathers fighting who is bigger autist.

Inb4

>Idiots like you are the best testimony how modern people are absolutely unable to comprehend how much freedom they have and how they are easily giving them away for a small rise or false sense of security.
To be fair, giving the plebes freedom was a mistake.

>How about here, you stupid cunt? I'm not even the other guy
clearly not because you didn't read the discussion at all, you worthless moron
if they are of the peasant social class, and are farmers, and are not serfs, then they own the land they farm on
that is literally the fucking definition of a franklin, free tenant, peasant, whatever you want to call it
go away

the only ones trolling are you and every other idiot in this thread that jumped on my post because god forbid someone insult the mystical orient and imply europe in the middle ages, while bad, wasn't the awful dark ages hellhole you read about once in elementary school before you gave up on learning about history forever

>Be a plebean faglet
>Complain about giving freedom to plebes

ITT: Single butthurt autist fighting viciously with anonymous shadows

I am more than willing to give up my freedom if it means making sure all my fellow retards can't fuck anything up outside of armed revolution.

oh no im so offended
god forbid i discuss anything on a mongolian moving pictures discussion circle

>Discuss

...

>meme reaction image

a taoist bureaucracy would never work.
"Where are all the files?"
"somewhere."
"You didnt file them!?"
"The files came, the files went."
"AAAARGH"
*muddles along*

>Shitposting for the sake of it
Thanks for derailing the thread, it was too nice to last more than 30 posts

>mfw this is my thread now

>Shitposting for the sake of it
sounds just like your posts to me
>Thanks for derailing the thread, it was too nice to last more than 30 posts
literally just made one post to correct an idiot on the possible social mobility of a peasant and a bunch of uneducated morons jumped on me
take it up with them

You got a pretty decent list of option in the first dozen or so replies. Truth be told, there aren't a lot of complex systems of government that work in a medieval settings.

Never my fault: The Post

Going by how it ended up working for Iceland?
It works until there is external influence. Then it collapses because nobody can be arsed to dedicated responses, often over 10-20 years.

Even Iceland, the most prolific clan area evera, collapsed into a state because eventually some Danes, Swedes or Continental people visit with a garrison, and did nothing. Iceland was LITERALLY clan in permanent isolation.

I always wonder if merchant republics can be in fact called republics. Their "democracy" was often very limited (if at all), the rules were convoluted mix of tribal and feudal rules bound with desire for profit and in the end, it was a handful of guys governing everything with full control and not having to deal with anyone.
So why they aren't just called oligarchies?

not an argument

This applies not only to clan-based society, but any decentralised system that only works as long as there is no external influence. Poles had their "noble republic", with nobility making more than 10% of population and treating each other as equals, regardless of anything, voting for everything in unisono, including their king.
Cue foreigners showing in with bribes and entire system went FUBAR within single generation.

Sounds kind of like how libertarians and anarchists defend their systems desu.

Iceland's government was influenced by familial groups, but calling it a clan system is not correct. The Icelandic Commonwealth was a really cool medieval government, I'd suggest reading up on it.

daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

Switzerland, Merchant Republics, the Irish

Difference between family groups and CLAN isn't that big. Its just a matter of population size.
What do size iceland apart is that they where isolated enough to be allowed to write history, and iron out the worst flaws of their internal legal system.

They also got to import religion and priests, which meant they was allowed to doom themselves, slowly.

Don't know about that, but I know one thing for sure - every system that requires vast majority of votes is doomed when some external force shows up and starts to meddle in the voting.
Of course having a single strongman is not good either, because that's just one person to bribe, but when you are trying to bribe a ruler of a country, as compared with bunch of nobodies in that country... well...

Newfag here, can someone who was around during the feudal era full me in on what it was really like? I don't want to contribute my poorly researched options as fact and make it harder for others to get an accurate understanding of this topic.

12th century Duke of Orléans reporting in. Ask me anything.

Sure, let us just figure out necromancy first, not that skeletons or ghosts make very trustworthy witnesses.

>12th century Duke
>15th century armour
>Shiggy Diggy

>Early Middle Ages Europe
>Barbarian Economy
>Military Might is Right

F R A N C I A
R
A
N
C
I
A

I know but my time machine keeps bringing me phone boxes and I don't know what to do with them.

>I'm actually planning to play a Frankish character in an upcoming campaign
Should I abuse the terms "Frankly" and "to be Frank"?

Of course.

>Besides Feudalism
isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1350026.files/Brown-Tyranny-of-a-Construct.pdf

Why not just call it America?

>Republic = democracy
>Republic isn't just a fancy term for any form of government that isn't a theocracy or a government
>The Res Publica can't be achieved in multiple ways
>There have never been republics ruled by nobility or the richest families
>Implying the first time we see egalitarian democracy arise isn't with Rousseau, after literally centuries if not millennia of various republican regimes existing around the world

I created a magocratic republic for my setting that is set up something like a school system. You come in as a Student, are trained by the resident Magisters until you are considered a proper mage, and then graduate as an Adjunct, with the possibility of advancing into the rank of Magister. There are several city-states, each ruled by an archmage, and each having a representative in the capital, who, alongside some ministers and the head of the military, form the governing body of the nation. The magic users they turn out are bound to the nation, as most cannot afford the school fees imposed on them for their arcane education, and therefore have a form of student loans that they have to pay off by doing work for the Republic and/or by hiring themselves off as court wizards to rulers in other, less magically adept nations.

Culturally they act as though they are welcoming and open minded, though in fact a majority of the magic users look down on not only non-magic users, but also on magic users not trained by their Republic. Hedge wizards, witches, druids, all savages. Clergy and other divine-type casters are considered beggars, chasing after blessings from capricious outsider beings. A magocracy being a meritocracy where the only worthwhile merit is magical ability, those who do not wield the arcane are considered even lower by these elitists, servants who can only do menial labor their betters do not even deign to cast a spell to solve.

You know what really helped peasants improve their social status? Everyone around them dying of the plague. You wouldn't believe the upward mobility you get over a pile of rotting corpses.

I'm pretty sure the Greeks considered Macedonians to be Hellenized Barbarians, until they took over everything.

But he's talking about the Basileia tôn Rhōmaiōn.

The Byzantines didn't just consider themselves Roman, others did as well. When a Turkish Sultanate conquered a lot of the Byzantine Empire, they called themselves the Sultanate of Rome.

>When a Turkish Sultanate conquered a lot of the Byzantine Empire, they called themselves the Sultanate of Rome.

How did people actually living in Rome feel about this?

All of Christendom got butthurt about the Sultanate of Rûm.

The Basileia Rhomaion was the Roman Empire.
It was split into east and west. The west was conquered, the east was not, until a thousand years later.
The Catholic Church gave away the title of Roman Empire to the Franks, and subsequently to the Germans, but even contemporary Catholic sources call the Byzantines "the Romans" or "the Greeks".
The term Byzantine was coined much much later by a German historian to differentiate the different successor states.

Rome was kind of a shithole at that point.

The Roman Empire finally died less than 50 years before Columbus sailed to America.

1453 never forget

>Democracy allows individuals to vote for matters relating to their government
>Bring in huge demographs of people who do not culturally align with the existing people
>Appeal to them with gibsmedats and use their votes to stay in power, irrecoverably diluting the demographs of the existing people, throwing the culture into an untrusting disarray of cliques and clans, and demolishing the economy by displacing native workers while simultaneously promising an increasing majority of foreigners benefits

You don't think anyone would be diabolical enough to do that, do you?

:^)

Oy vey!

...