Sarmatian Commonwealth: Two Nations bound by a single crown...

Equal under law is most likely how that is to be interpreted, a king is afforded no special rights based off his rank or birth, he is subject to the same laws as the common man, you would need to give more info for how that plays in leadership roles, it is going to most likely be one of the following. King rules and is overseen by some kind of elected branch, the King stands equal with the elected officials for governance, or the king is purely for show and tradition, well the actual governing of the state is upto the elected officials.

>"Sarmatia"
>not tribal Iranian nomads that specialize in foot and horse archery

I really don't care what one 15th century scholar who desperately wanted his nation to have a proper history thought, they didn't have anything to do with with Poland

The heir to the throne is voted by the "people".
So its not the firstborn who gets to sit on the throne, but maybe the kings nephew if the elite wants him too.

They did live in parts of Poland-Lithuania. The parts that are now in Ukraine.

Japan?

Different because England's monarch are complete and utter figureheads.

He gets it.

The president of the united states is supposed to be equal to the average citizen, but that is not the case. Lindon B Johnson would've spent the latter part of his life in prison if that were true.

Every system of governance is an oligarchy except anarchy. Democracy is an oligarchy the way a square is a rectangle.

But he's really good at killing people.

>Every system of governance is an oligarchy except anarchy. Democracy is an oligarchy the way a square is a rectangle.

This is what some people ACTUALLY THINK.

Just because having money effects the outcome doesn't make democracy an oligarchy, by that definition every system of government is an oligarchy.

How is that different? They're still a monarchy

they are

Oligarchy is a concentrated amount of power in a small number of people. That's what governance is.

Primus inter pares memes

that's being pedantic, the usage of the word oligarchy is for especially heinous examples.

In reality, the word oligarchy is overwhelmingly used to describe corporate plutocracies, where large corporations are the real power behind the government.

King also had extremely limited power, with most of the power being in the hands of parliament - sejm.

Members of said parliament were also chosen during regional elections, much like modern representatives.

Thing is, only nobility had voting rights. But Poland then had suprisingly high percentage of nobility. Around 10% or something, five to ten times more than most of Western Europe. And when you consider that ancient Athens are considered a "democracy", while also only small elite of "citizens" had voting rights.

Another silly thing is that two thirds of said nobility were no richer than average peasants, they had to work their own fields and generally their noble title was the most valuable thing they even possesed.

People of the Commonwealth even contemporarily called their form of government "democracy of nobility". So it is not as stupid as it sounds.

Even the equality part. Again, limited only to nobility as peasants and burghers were "lower" but the Commonwealth, unlike other contemporary nations, did not recognize any aristocratic titles. All nobles were (by law, money and prestige are another things) of equal status. Even king was often considered just "the first amongst equals", hence many limitations on his power. King even neeed to sign a "contract" listing things he is expected to do during his reign, and theoretically he could be put to responsibility if he'd fail to do those (but in practice it never actually happened afaik).

>the word is for when I want to use on people I don't like

You're doing it wrong, you have to name the next country starting with "d".

yes, that is how pejorative words work.

They said all people so I don't see why the king would be equal to a woman.

welcome to being pedantic

Oligarchy isn't inherently pejorative though.

I would argue that it is, as no government describes itself as an oligarchy and it is actively avoided as a self identification.

similar to the word dictatorship (at least since the Romans)

So. Like. Canada?

Turns out governments are deceptive with their populace when describing power relations.

>expecting anything in 7th Sea to make sense
>expecting anything John Wick ever touched to make sense
I mean, come on, even that picture makes no sense. That dude's "rapier" blade is like two feet long, it's shorter than his own torso. The grill has a hairline so high her head looks like a volta mask, and the goons in the background have clothes from a whole different period.

>the Commonwealth, unlike other contemporary nations, did not recognize any aristocratic titles
What is Switzerland.

Well speaking in modernity in regards to the qualities of our currently existing governments then yeah, it can be. Being identified as an oligarchy or dictator is derisive because western society had that entire era where we decided monarchies were a crock and we've built nations on the ideal that the people should decide who governs what. "Dictator" is inherently negative but they can exist in any form of governance, it just describes someone who has taken absolute power. A democratically elected leader can become a dictator just as much as an individual who inherited a monarchy

But in a historical or a descriptive context for a fantasy setting theres nothing inherently negative about saying how Athens had many periods where power was controlled by a small group of powerful Oligarchs or that the Lich King rules from on high as the supreme Monarch.

A little country nobody really cared about back then, other than being source of mercs.

Besides I'm not sure, but I think that Swiss had no nobility at all.

While in poland there were a class of privilegeed nobility, but it weren't further divided into ranks of precendence, unlike rest of Europe with it's barons, earls, counts, dukes, marqoises etc.

In a historical context i agree it works as a descriptor, I'm just arguing that it isn't something someone would call themselves. the governments themselves would probably use another term, such as merchant republic, aristocratic council, etc.

>he thinks oligarchy is pejorative

I see it's somehow based on Pol-
>where all people are equal, even kings
Oh

>>Democratic monarchy
Isn't it called "Elective Gavelkind" or something?

No, they didn't. Stop this unsourced bullshit

Democracy doesn't mean universal suffrage.

Commonwealth is translated as Republic in most languages, by the way, making the Polish Commonwealt also a Republican Monarchy.

Your 21th century anglicized expectations don't belong to historical and fantasious settings.

that refers to deciding inheritance, its more elective monarchy in general

>We need a Jagiellon!

I don't really think thats true. We have a stigma for it due to our history, but I don't see why cultures who were used to such forms of governance would really find the equivalent of the word offensive.

I pretty much visit Veeky Forums for these precious moments when people who act smart and haughty are outed as IQ 70 retards.

The place that is now Poland did see the Sarmatians and other iranic nomads dwelling in her lands. Often small groups accompanying bigger groups of germanic migrators like the vandals.

So did Germany, France and even Spain, though. The relationship between Sarmatians and slavic Poles is non-existent, even more meme-tier than that between magyars and huns.

>Democratic Monarchy
they literally explain it in the book. Like many nations, there's a parliament and a king. Unlike most nations, every single citizen is a member of the parliament, and the only thing preventing them from voting on any issue is whether or not they are present to do the voting.

>A little country nobody really cared about back then, other than being source of mercs.

Switzerland expanded by conquest and tore a new one to every single one of its neighbours. Just much less land to grab in Western Europe.

>Besides I'm not sure, but I think that Swiss had no nobility at all.

Most cantons did. But the nobles had no special prerogatives.

So only the richest people, who can afford to stay in the capitol and take the time out of their day, have real voting power?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism?wprov=sfla1

Really, guys?

Okay, this is an opinion piece, but here I go.

Calling yourself a plutocracy is basically and admission that your government has stopped working as intended, you are either a republic in which the people are no longer in charge or you are a monarchy in which the monarch has lost his power. There exists no stable form of government involving an oligarchy that is not inherently built upon public perception of another form of government.

Here is my reasoning

Any Oligarchy that is not built upon deception will eventually be led by an autocrat that has out-competed the rest, if there is no deception then there is no pretense of either enfranchisement of the masses, nor is there some divine mandate that needs to be upheld with a figurehead. So any of these oligarchs could seek more power without issue.

in summary, oligarchy is more of a symptom of the failings of some other form of government than it is a form of government that can be maintained independently.

the only exception to this I can think of is some sort of Religious Council based theocracy, or a council of elders in a small village or city.

exactly like any other democracy, yes.
They also have instances of a single village just up and rolling to the capitol and fucking up the voting process for everyone because they have at least a kingmaker minority at the time until their token legislation they want passed is passed.

It's not a utopian system. It's as broken as every other system in the world it occupies, just in different ways.

I don't really know what you're trying to claim or prove by sharing a link about something most people already knew.

Not trying to prove anything. Just pointing out how silly it is to make fun of the name of Not!Poland for not referencing real Poland when the name clearly does reference real Poland.

Then I can agree with you, but I think that the argument had already evolved as being about Poland itself and not about the fantasy one so your comment was a bit out of place.

Fair enough

fuck, i meant to say oligarchy in the second section, not plutocracy.

The entire point of modernist governance is concentration of power, that's how they operate on large scale. If its doing that it works as intended. They're all oligarchy, its not a failure state its the win condition. Some are more pleasant or have more brands of soda, some call their oligarchy the vanguard, etc. but statecraft requires concentration of power. That's the idea. Oligarchies perpetuate themselves by getting new oligarchs and shuffling bureaucratic formations, sometimes violently sometimes not. You can like some oligarchy more than others for sure though.

This is part of the purpose of representative democracy, You get to choose your "oligarch" and your representative elects their "oligarch" and ideally this means that the masses still get what they want.

but in the end is that really an oligarchy if the power is invested by the populace?

In short yes. Even if there were some sort of representation that was very accurate the power is concentrated in a small number of bureaucratic, technical specialists and ruling parties for the sake of operations. The populace is not capable/interested in being consulted for the daily functioning of the state.

I'm not saying it always sucks, its more complicated than that. But getting the hobbsian shit out of the way and acknowledging what the mechanisms do is important before you get into the specifics of policy.

There might be some very small exceptions in microstates, but even then it would be surprising if the populace could be regularly consulted with any efficiency. Maybe communes, but those tend to exist inside state structures as well. Its more a matter of degrees between efficient implementation of policy vs how much engagement with the population is required for them to think they're not being overly taken advantage of.