Democracy and military strength

[Linkey]

As far as I understand it, in ancient history, the Eastern despotisms dominated the world because they fought better than democratic city-states. Unfortunately, the one-man ruling is necessary for a war. At the same time, there is an opposite tendency: free countries support new ideas, including military innovations, better than unfree ones. The general weakness of Eastern-type civilization is that the science and technology developed more slowly there, than in Western-type civilizations.
As for military innovations and ideas, I can suggest three examples:
1) The Swiss have historically lived very freely, and now the Switzerland is now the country with the highest level of democracy; and in the Middle Ages, the Swiss were a very powerful military force, usually defeating the knights. The secret of the Swiss's success was in the rational tactics of their "phalanx" (pikemen);
2) As I understand it, in the early Middle Ages, the Vikings had a military democracy, while in the late Middle Ages, a regular monarchy reigned in Scandinavia. Is it possible to draw a parallel here with the fact that in the early Middle Ages the Vikings could terrorize Europeans, but after 1064 they lost this advantage?
3) If I am not mistaken, the nomadic Mongols had a lot of what can be called democracy. On the other hand, Genghis Khan united them into a single centralized state, and achieved a huge military success. It seems to me that the following scenario can be natural in history: first, there is democracy in the country and this allows smart people to grow into the elite and implement innovations, and then a dictator appears who turns the whole country into a very effective military machine. In addition to the Mongols, another example was the Nazi Germany.
Please comment my thoughts above.

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Linkey said:

As far as I understand it, in ancient history, the Eastern despotisms dominated the world because they fought better than democratic city-states. Unfortunately, the one-man ruling is necessary for a war. At the same time, there is an opposite tendency: free countries support new ideas, including military innovations, better than unfree ones. The general weakness of Eastern-type civilization is that the science and technology developed more slowly there, than in Western-type civilizations.
As for military innovations and ideas, I can suggest three examples:
1) The Swiss have historically lived very freely, and now the Switzerland is now the country with the highest level of democracy; and in the Middle Ages, the Swiss were a very powerful military force, usually defeating the knights. The secret of the Swiss's success was in the rational tactics of their "phalanx" (pikemen);
2) As I understand it, in the early Middle Ages, the Vikings had a military democracy, while in the late Middle Ages, a regular monarchy reigned in Scandinavia. Is it possible to draw a parallel here with the fact that in the early Middle Ages the Vikings could terrorize Europeans, but after 1064 they lost this advantage?
3) If I am not mistaken, the nomadic Mongols had a lot of what can be called democracy. On the other hand, Genghis Khan united them into a single centralized state, and achieved a huge military success. It seems to me that the following scenario can be natural in history: first, there is democracy in the country and this allows smart people to grow into the elite and implement innovations, and then a dictator appears who turns the whole country into a very effective military machine. In addition to the Mongols, another example was the Nazi Germany.
Please comment my thoughts above.

What do you mean by Eastern despotisms dominating the world? At what period in history was this? 

As for the progression you mention, I think you omit one very important feature. Autocratic empires tend to be short-lived and break apart fairly rapidly. This happened with the Mongol Empire and the Carolingian Empire for instance. Often they are held together by the force of personality of one man and when he goes, disorder follows. (By the way Nazi Germany was a catastrophic failure to build an empire, being destroyed in a mere handful of years.)

The Roman Empire endured for several centuries but that grew under the Republic, which was not an autocratic system. The Roman Empire certainly continued under the emperors, but by then it was mostly a matter of maintenance rather than expansion. So that seems to me to show the stability of a system that does not depend on the personality of one man.

I do not pretend to be a historian, but it seems to me the more long lived political systems have tended to be hereditary monarchies (i.e. with respected rules for the succession of leadership) which had modest territorial ambitions, avoiding overreach. Often these have had some form of popular representation, to keep rule of the monarch to some degree aligned with the feelings of the populace.

 

[Linkey]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

What do you mean by Eastern despotisms dominating the world? At what period in history was this? 

3000 years ago. In particular, the Persian empire included 40% if the whole Earth population, if I am not mistaken.

[exchemist]

36 minutes ago, Linkey said:

3000 years ago. In particular, the Persian empire included 40% if the whole Earth population, if I am not mistaken.

That empire, built up by Cyrus from 550BC seems to have lasted about 200 years. It was ruled by a succession of kings. It notably failed to retain Greece (cf. battle of Salamis, in which the Persians were defeated by democratic Athens) -  and was eventually taken over by Alexander the Great. 

Edited Wednesday at 12:30 PM by exchemist

[toucana]

7 hours ago, Linkey said:

As far as I understand it, in ancient history, the Eastern despotisms dominated the world because they fought better than democratic city-states. Unfortunately, the one-man ruling is necessary for a war. At the same time, there is an opposite tendency: free countries support new ideas, including military innovations, better than unfree ones. The general weakness of Eastern-type civilization is that the science and technology developed more slowly there, than in Western-type civilizations.
As for military innovations and ideas, I can suggest three examples:
1) The Swiss have historically lived very freely, and now the Switzerland is now the country with the highest level of democracy; and in the Middle Ages, the Swiss were a very powerful military force, usually defeating the knights. The secret of the Swiss's success was in the rational tactics of their "phalanx" (pikemen);
2) As I understand it, in the early Middle Ages, the Vikings had a military democracy, while in the late Middle Ages, a regular monarchy reigned in Scandinavia. Is it possible to draw a parallel here with the fact that in the early Middle Ages the Vikings could terrorize Europeans, but after 1064 they lost this advantage?
3) If I am not mistaken, the nomadic Mongols had a lot of what can be called democracy. On the other hand, Genghis Khan united them into a single centralized state, and achieved a huge military success. It seems to me that the following scenario can be natural in history: first, there is democracy in the country and this allows smart people to grow into the elite and implement innovations, and then a dictator appears who turns the whole country into a very effective military machine. In addition to the Mongols, another example was the Nazi Germany.
Please comment my thoughts above.

i. Swiss Mercenaries:

Swiss mercenaries became highly sought-after during a relatively short period in the Late Middle Ages towards the end of the Hundred Years War (1337-1453), and the renaissance in Europe - especially during the period of the city state wars in northern Italy  - which led to their adoption as official bodyguards to the pope in the Vatican City.

Quote

 

Hiring them was made even more attractive because entire ready-made Swiss mercenary contingents could be obtained by simply contracting with their local governments, the various Swiss cantons—the cantons had a form of militia system in which the soldiers were bound to serve and were trained and equipped to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries

 

The role of Swiss Mercenaries dwindled very rapidly thereafter, as the Swiss Cantons adopted a much more isolationist policy towards involvement in European military affairs.

ii. Vikings

'Viking society was structured around three main social classes: Jarls (nobles), Karls (freemen), and Thralls (slaves), with a focus on honor, family, and traditions, and with the possibility of moving between classes based on actions and reputation.' (AI precis)

The Viking were not democrats. They were predatory pillagers and slave-raiders based around tribal chieftainships and clans. Their most fearsome period of coastal piracy lasted from the middle of the 9th century AD until around the 11th century. The attacks subsided thereafter for several reasons, but one in particular was the growing Christianisation of Scandinavia by the Roman Catholic church.

Quote

 

By the late 11th century, royal dynasties were legitimised by the Catholic Church (which had had little influence in Scandinavia 300 years earlier) which were asserting their power with increasing authority and ambition, with the three kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden taking shape. Towns appeared that functioned as secular and ecclesiastical administrative centres and market sites, and monetary economies began to emerge based on English and German models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings

 

 

iii. Mongols

The Mongol Empire was built from a coalition of nomadic tribal chieftains based around a clan social system. Ghengis Khan who emerged as the key figure after being proclaimed ‘Khan of All Khans’ at a council of all Mongols in 1206 was a ruthless authoritarian, and not a democrat. One distinguishing feature of his military leadership was that of promoting commanders on merit, rather than by relying on aristocratic favouritism. The Mongol Empire fell apart very quickly into quarrelling rival Khanates following the deaths of Genghis Khan in 1227, and his grandson Kublai Khan who founded and ruled the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty (1271-1368)  in China from 1271 until his death 1294. (The Yuan dynasty in China subsequently collapsed because of rampant economic inflation and fiscal mismanagement)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

 

[Linkey]

3 hours ago, toucana said:

The Mongol Empire was built from a coalition of nomadic tribal chieftains based around a clan social system.

What is the clan social system? I have heard that the nomads have a "freedom-loving spirit" or something like that. Maybe before the Ghengis Khan, a common mongol had a possibility to move somewhere apart from his current chief if he didn't like this chief. Now Mongolia is one of the most democratic states in Asia.

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, Linkey said:

What is the clan social system? I have heard that the nomads have a "freedom-loving spirit" or something like that. Maybe before the Ghengis Khan, a common mongol had a possibility to move somewhere apart from his current chief if he didn't like this chief. Now Mongolia is one of the most democratic states in Asia.

A clan is a group based on kinship, i.e. extended families. So no, you probably wouldn’t move to a new chief based on not liking the one you have.

[CharonY]

Generally speaking, sweeping generalizations and simplified connections are rarely leading to any insights. It tries to reduce complex situations into an one-dimensional element.

12 hours ago, Linkey said:

As far as I understand it, in ancient history, the Eastern despotisms dominated the world because they fought better than democratic city-states.

So this sentence is already highly problematic as it doesn't really delineate a specific era nor does it specify who you mean. You also do not mention what you mean with "dominated". Do you mean direct conflicts? Or stability of the given group?

Who do you consider democratic? Some ancient societies had more or less democratic elements. But taking one of the largest one, the Roman Empire, it lasted roughly from 500 years (ca. 500 BC to 27 BC, starting with Octavian's sole rule).

In contrast the mentioned Persian (Achaemenid) Empire started at a similar time (550 BC) but ended 330 BC after the mentioned conquest by Alexander the Great. So the Roman Republic outlasted it by a fair bit.

  

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

That empire, built up by Cyrus from 550BC seems to have lasted about 200 years. It was ruled by a succession of kings. It notably failed to retain Greece (cf. battle of Salamis, in which the Persians were defeated by democratic Athens) -  and was eventually taken over by Alexander the Great. 

 

And there is an interesting interconncetion with many groups in the area, including Macedonia. Macedonia was a Persian vassal and fought alongside them during the battle of Platea (which happened just before the mentioned battle of Salamis). Afterwards Alexander I of Macedon had peaceful relationships with the Greek, but his successor started conflicts with Athens. Ultimately they part of various conflicts, often with shifting allegiances. But ultimately suppressed and finally ended Athens' dominance.

In that regard, it is perhaps relevant to note that the governance system of ancient Macedonia is (afaik) not really known. Evidence points to an assembly of groups around the King, but there is disagreement if the power is concentrated with king or whether the power is shared (which again, makes arguments based on democracy vs autocracy difficult). And this is interesting because Macedonia was also a check on the then dominating power of Athens in the region.

Also one should add, many pre-modern democracy failed, but so did autocracies so to draw a links specifically to the governmental form to their failures does not provide a lot explanations to what happened.

[iNow]

13 hours ago, Linkey said:

Please comment my thoughts above.

Not just inaccurate, but childish 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Generally speaking, sweeping generalizations and simplified connections are rarely leading to any insights. It tries to reduce complex situations into an one-dimensional element.

So this sentence is already highly problematic as it doesn't really delineate a specific era nor does it specify who you mean. You also do not mention what you mean with "dominated". Do you mean direct conflicts? Or stability of the given group?

Who do you consider democratic? Some ancient societies had more or less democratic elements. But taking one of the largest one, the Roman Empire, it lasted roughly from 500 years (ca. 500 BC to 27 BC, starting with Octavian's sole rule).

In contrast the mentioned Persian (Achaemenid) Empire started at a similar time (550 BC) but ended 330 BC after the mentioned conquest by Alexander the Great. So the Roman Republic outlasted it by a fair bit.

  

 

And there is an interesting interconncetion with many groups in the area, including Macedonia. Macedonia was a Persian vassal and fought alongside them during the battle of Platea (which happened just before the mentioned battle of Salamis). Afterwards Alexander I of Macedon had peaceful relationships with the Greek, but his successor started conflicts with Athens. Ultimately they part of various conflicts, often with shifting allegiances. But ultimately suppressed and finally ended Athens' dominance.

In that regard, it is perhaps relevant to note that the governance system of ancient Macedonia is (afaik) not really known. Evidence points to an assembly of groups around the King, but there is disagreement if the power is concentrated with king or whether the power is shared (which again, makes arguments based on democracy vs autocracy difficult). And this is interesting because Macedonia was also a check on the then dominating power of Athens in the region.

Also one should add, many pre-modern democracy failed, but so did autocracies so to draw a links specifically to the governmental form to their failures does not provide a lot explanations to what happened.

Agreed. It seems impossible to draw firm conclusions from attempting to correlate the presumed style of government with military success or long term stability. But what does seem to be the case is that territorial expansion reliant on a single autocrat often does not create a stable entity.   

[toucana]

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

What is the clan social system? I have heard that the nomads have a "freedom-loving spirit" or something like that. Maybe before the Ghengis Khan, a common mongol had a possibility to move somewhere apart from his current chief if he didn't like this chief. Now Mongolia is one of the most democratic states in Asia.

The word ‘clan’ comes from a Scottish Gaelic word clann meaning “children” or “offspring”  which took on the wider sense of a group of people united by actual or perceived kinship and descent. In Scotland in particular, clans were named after an eponymous apical ancestor who served as a symbol of the clan’s unity. The direct descendant of that ancestor was the chieftain who owned and controlled all the land in a particular area, and leased it on a feudal basis to farmers known as  ‘tacksmen’ in return for taxes in kind, and for military service at the bidding of their lord. The principal Scottish chieftains in turn participated in a form of elective kingship amongst themselves known as ’Tanistry’.

If you are interested in the Mongols, then you might also want to read up on the history of the Manchu tribes who became the *second* group of Asian nomads to conquer the whole of China in 1683, when they established the alien Manchu Qing dynasty (1683- 1912) which was the very last imperial Chinese dynasty. The Manchu conquest came at the end of a 65 year war started by the Aisin Gioro clan based in Manchuria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_from_Ming_to_Qing

[CharonY]

17 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But what does seem to be the case is that territorial expansion reliant on a single autocrat often does not create a stable entity.   

I don't disagree, autocracies have an inherent challenge related to successors as well as challenges to a centralized power system.
But that being said, it would also depend on the underpinning support system. It again depends a bit on how specific one defines autocracies, but certain feudalistic and burecatic system have been known that stabilized society. An example is perhaps the Zhou dynasty, which survived for about 8oo years. Though the latter part was characterized by a reduced centralized power.

[toucana]

28 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I don't disagree, autocracies have an inherent challenge related to successors as well as challenges to a centralized power system.
But that being said, it would also depend on the underpinning support system. It again depends a bit on how specific one defines autocracies, but certain feudalistic and burecatic system have been known that stabilized society. An example is perhaps the Zhou dynasty, which survived for about 8oo years. Though the latter part was characterized by a reduced centralized power.

The Zhou dynasty (1046-256 BC) is interesting, not only because it was the longest lasting dynasty in Chinese history, but also because it marked a transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in China. The Zhou invaded from the west, overthrowing the previous Shang Dynasty (1600-1046 BC) which was a Bronze Age culture. The Zhou expropriated much of the Bronze Age culture of the Shang before developing iron smelting and forging technologies of their own shortly after 1000 BC.

One again the Zhou dynasty is perceived as a feudal culture, based on its fengjian 封建 system of fiefdom holding which developed as it conquered the whole of eastern China. As you say, the Zhou dynasty went into a prolonged period of decline ending what is known as the “Warring States’ period (475-221 BC), and a period of fragmentation and political chaos which coincided with the era known as “The Hundred Philosophers” which included the founders of Confucianism, Taoism, Mohism and Legalism.

Edited Wednesday at 08:30 PM by toucana
corrected 'Zhou' para 2

[exchemist]

48 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I don't disagree, autocracies have an inherent challenge related to successors as well as challenges to a centralized power system.
But that being said, it would also depend on the underpinning support system. It again depends a bit on how specific one defines autocracies, but certain feudalistic and burecatic system have been known that stabilized society. An example is perhaps the Zhou dynasty, which survived for about 8oo years. Though the latter part was characterized by a reduced centralized power.

Yes, monarchies, e.g. the English- and later British -  monarchy, can be very stable indeed. But then they have a high degree of succession planning that is accepted by the people they rule, which avoids a power vacuum when the monarch dies. And they have also made concessions over the years to give the people a say, in order to retain acceptance of the system. In fact, the English and Spanish monarchies were actually reinstated by popular demand  after experiments with a republic, which in both cases had led to autocracy (Cromwell and Franco).   

[Sensei]

There are democracies and “democracies”. The DJT recently ordered the bombing of completely non-military locations, committing war crimes and murdering civilians who were not supposed to be targeted at all in Jemen. Just like his beloved colleague Volodya, and yet another mass murderer netanjahu.

In these pseudo-democracies of modern times every leader wants to bomb and attack other countries according to his own vision, no matter that according to their constitution he has no authority to do so. After all, he doesn't “declare war,” he just bombs something there and someone there, and they watch it on the TV and it's okay. Like here:

 

 

You have such the Volodie, a terrorist group leader, who has committed war crimes, and with him you talk on the phone, and make a deal. And if someone doesn't have the enough power, you don't talk to him, you just bomb him, entire village, entire city and entire country. It's just semantics. For them.

They say "We do not negotiate with terrorist groups".. How is one terrorist group supposed to talk to another terrorist group?

When was the last declaration of war sent before joining the hostilities?

I guess it's high time to replace these pseudo political leaders from orbit simply by using lasers from the sky.. Let them hide in their burrows in the deepest places. And flying air planes is left for the birds. If I found out the president was flying on my plane, I think I'd be late for my flight on that plane. Especially if he is a criminal.

War criminals should not go out in the open air. They should rot several kilometers underground. Where they belong. Where is their place.

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:03 PM by Sensei

[toucana]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

In these pseudo-democracies of modern times every leader wants to bomb and attack other countries according to his own vision, no matter that according to their constitution he has no authority to do so. After all, he doesn't “declare war,” he just bombs something there and someone there, and they watch it on the TV and it's okay. Like here:

 

 

The photograph you attached is a war room shot of Operation Neptune Spear in progress on 2 May 2011. This was a surgical strike authrorised by President Obama, in which Seal Team Six shot and killed Osama Bin Laden at his hideout in Abbottabad Pakistan. It has nothing to do with the recent strikes ordered by president Trump on Houthi rebels in Yemen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Osama Bin Laden was the leader of the Al Qaeda terror group which planned and executed the 9/11 attacks on the WTC in New York, and the Pentagon in Washington DC on 11 September 2001. These attacks which killed 2,977 people, were the deadliest terrorist assault in history. The casualties that day significantly exceeded the total of  2,403 Americans killed in the surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7  1941 - an event which led to the USA entering WW2, and the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan to end the war in 1945.

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:03 PM by toucana
corrected 'WTC'

[Sensei]

2 minutes ago, toucana said:

The photograph you attached is a war room shot of Operation Neptune Spear in progress on 2 May 2011. This was a surgical strike authrorised by President Obama, in which Seal Team Six shot and killed Osama Bin Laden at his hideout in Abbottabad Pakistan. It has nothing to do with the recent strikes ordered by president Trump on Houthi rebels in Yemen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Osama Bin Laden was the leader of the Al Qaeda terror group which planned and executed the 9/11 attacks on the WTS in New York, and the Pentagon in Washington DC on 11 September 2001. These attacks which killed 2,977 people, were the deadliest terrorist assault in history. The casualties that day significantly exceeded the total of  2,403 Americans killed in the surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7  1941 - an event which led to the USA entering WW2, and the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan to end the war in 1945.

 

..did you think through your statement deeply before posting.. ?

 

[toucana]

11 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..did you think through your statement deeply before posting.. ?

 

Yes I did. I also took the trouble to research my post and provide some factual sources and date checking, which is a lot more than you did.

Do you really believe that the US government was not entitled to carry out a surgical strike to kill Osama Bin Laden in the wake of the largest terrorist assault in history -  one which killed more Americans than Pearl Harbour did ? - And if not why not  ? Where is your argument ? Why did you try to pass off a photo from 2011 as if were relevant to an issue in 2025 ?

I don’t like deceit and innuendo. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.