Dystopian Pre Industrial Societies/States

Instead of shouting, why don't you explain what industrialized societies the chattel slave economies were enmeshed in during the 1600s and 1700s (i.e before industrialization)
I am fairly sure the familiar model of Antebellum South cotton plantations, though taking from, as you said, the slave economies of the previous centuries, were of an unprecedented scale compared to said centuries. This being the result of integration into a wider industrialized world.

I can concede that not much has changed on the micro scale for the slaves. They still work twenty-hour days if their owners manage to enforce it, but the cotton gin provided impetus to make these actions widespread.
 
King Leopold's Congo Free State was the ultimate dystopia. But I am not sure if it would fall in the "pre industrial" category. The Congo Free State itself wasn't industrialised, but it was exploited for its raw materials for European industry and to line King Leopold's corrupt pockets. If the Antebellum South is included in this thread, then Congo Free State probably could be to.
 
I mean, is Panem dystopian?
The Aztecs were pretty much the mexican stone age Panem in that regard
And I'd say they are one of the few societies where, as another commenter said,
the horror reaches all of it
I mean they took pride on the fact they sacrificed people by the thousands and ali of their civilisation was based on the religion that promoted that in order to appease the Sun's thirst for blood
Even the people who never saw a sacrifice were deeply aware of it and the justification that if that many people werent killed the sun god would murder them all, living knowing that must have been terrifying
I politely disagree

The second myth is that in its appetite for death as spectacle the Triple Alliance was fundamentally different from Europe. Criminals beheaded in Palermo, heretics burned alive in Toledo, assassins drawn and quartered in Paris—Europeans flocked to every form of painful death imaginable, free entertainment that drew huge crowds. London, the historian Fernand Braudel tells us, held public executions eight times a year at Tyburn, just north of Hyde Park. (The diplomat Samuel Pepys paid a shilling for a good view of a Tyburn hanging in 1664; watching the victim beg for mercy, he wrote, was a crowd of “at least 12 or 14,000 people.”) In most if not all European nations, the bodies were impaled on city walls and strung along highways as warnings. “The corpses dangling from trees whose distant silhouettes stand out against the sky, in so many old paintings, are merely a realistic detail,” Braudel observed. “They were part of the landscape.” Between 1530 and 1630, according to Cambridge historian V. A. C. Gatrell, England executed seventy-five thousand people. At the time, its population was about three million, perhaps a tenth that of the Mexica empire. Arithmetic suggests that if England had been the size of the Triple Alliance, it would have executed, on average, about 7,500 people per year, roughly twice the number Cortés estimated for the empire. France and Spain were still more bloodthirsty than England, according to Braudel.
- 1491 : The Americas before Columbus

I agree with the person you disagree with and as such disagree with your disagreement. Sure the Aztec Empire wasn't a particularly nice place to live but I very much believe the levels of ritual death practiced in the Aztec Empire are overblown and taken out of the context of the time period it existed within.

Funnily enough I'd consider Spain much more dystopian during this time period. The conquest of the Aztecs basically coincided with the breaking of the Treaty of Granada and the provisions of providing freedom of religion and such. The forced conversions of conversos and moriscos by the Spanish Crowns, the dictating of the clothing these converts were allowed to wear and the nature of the Spanish Inquisition in general seem pretty dystopic.

Even the people who never saw met an inquisitor would've been deeply aware of the Inquisition and the knowledge that if anyone suspected their conversions weren't sincere they'd be punished. Living knowing all of that would've been terrifying. ;)

Cheekiness aside though, I guess the Old Assyrian Empire? I find it really hard to come up with ideas of a dystopian state because being dystopian is a good way to get your subjects pissed at you and wanting to rebel. And pre-industrial societies don't really have the ability to rule and have any sort of longevity. Putting down the Old Assyrian Empire because it clearly terrified the Hittites enough that they were willing to support the faltering Mitanni Empire to prevent the Assyrians from rising again.

I think the Madurai Sultanate might apply for being considered dystopic too. It was pretty short lived but spent it's entire existence brutalising the Hindu population, ruled through military force and terror and worse of all... was bitched about by Ibn Battuta. Clearly a dystopia if there ever was one.
 
I think the Madurai Sultanate might apply for being considered dystopic too. It was pretty short lived but spent it's entire existence brutalising the Hindu population, ruled through military force and terror and worse of all... was bitched about by Ibn Battuta. Clearly a dystopia if there ever was one.
"Fun" fact about it: It went through 8 rulers in its 43 years of existence.
 
Wow, that blew up. Thanks, everyone has really good stuff so far. I definitely agree with adding the Incas, Vlad Dracul's Wallachia, Aztecs, Late Roman Republic, Neo Assyria, 16th and 17th century Iberia, and Ivan IV's Russia.

I myself would also add a few more, Edo period Japan: the country was closed off to and from the entire world virtually frozen in time, and had a mass confiscation of weapons, and persecution of religions.
Spanish America: Especially the early parts. While the Black Legend has exaggerated the awfulness of life for the natives to some degree it can't be denied that the encomiendas were awful.
Puritan old and new England: Honesty they deserve it just for being perhaps the biggest sticks in the mud in all history.
Colonial Brazil: Printing Press banned, racial caste system, and much of its populace was worked to death in the mines and plantations
Old Kingdom Egypt: Ancient Egypt as a whole was extremely totalitarian, but the old kingdom especially earns it. The Pharoh had almost complete control over the entire nation as it was all huddled around the Nile. Further, while the Pyramids were not built by slaves or Hebrews, they did require a massive labor force of peasantry which I can't imagine was pleasant.

Some more I'm more tentative on if they deserve to be called dystopias: both Sassanid and Safavid Persia, late Qing dynasty, the Timurids, ancient Athens, early modern Thailand/Siam, and the Iroquois Confederacy,
 
Did the Pharaoh really have almost complete control over the nation? They were a Bronze Age state--even if the Pharaoh had de jure control, practically I wouldn't be surprised if the state's footprint wasn't much, much lower than it is today. And it's the de facto status of the Pharaoh's control that matters for most people.
 
By this point with the amount of countries being listed it's as if essentially every pre-industrial state was a dystopia. Which is admittedly true in the sense they probably weren't pleasant places to live in - but the phenomena rather makes the term itself useless.

How about the reverse query; pre-industrial states that were "utopias" compared to their contemporaries? (It's all relative, of course - I can consider an utterly ghastly genocidal empire a "utopia" if all the other ones were even ghastlier genocidal empires)
 
Last edited:
Wow, that blew up. Thanks, everyone has really good stuff so far. I definitely agree with adding the Incas, Vlad Dracul's Wallachia, Aztecs, Late Roman Republic, Neo Assyria, 16th and 17th century Iberia, and Ivan IV's Russia.

I myself would also add a few more, Edo period Japan: the country was closed off to and from the entire world virtually frozen in time, and had a mass confiscation of weapons, and persecution of religions.
Spanish America: Especially the early parts. While the Black Legend has exaggerated the awfulness of life for the natives to some degree it can't be denied that the encomiendas were awful.
Puritan old and new England: Honesty they deserve it just for being perhaps the biggest sticks in the mud in all history.
Colonial Brazil: Printing Press banned, racial caste system, and much of its populace was worked to death in the mines and plantations
Old Kingdom Egypt: Ancient Egypt as a whole was extremely totalitarian, but the old kingdom especially earns it. The Pharoh had almost complete control over the entire nation as it was all huddled around the Nile. Further, while the Pyramids were not built by slaves or Hebrews, they did require a massive labor force of peasantry which I can't imagine was pleasant.

Some more I'm more tentative on if they deserve to be called dystopias: both Sassanid and Safavid Persia, late Qing dynasty, the Timurids, ancient Athens, early modern Thailand/Siam, and the Iroquois Confederacy,

Why the Iroquois? Is it because of their attempt at genociding the whole Great Lakes area, or...
 
Edo period Japan: the country was closed off to and from the entire world virtually frozen in time, and had a mass confiscation of weapons, and persecution of religions.
I mean, isolation from the outside world doesn't really count as a dystopia. Mass confiscation of weapons doesn't either. And the part of the population subject to religious persecution was extremely small. So none of this really holds up.

Late Qing was probably not an especially fun place to live but I definitely wouldn't call it a dystopia, just a society in a state of social decay and turmoil. Certainly it's much closer to being a dystopia than Edo Japan. Maybe it was a dystopia from the perspective of a Christian in Shandong in the late 1890s.
 
I mean, if you believe the chronicles, then Tepes' Wallachia could probably be considered fairly dystopic. All powerful ruler, harsh justice, paranoia, powerful enemies threatening the state. And, you know, the impalings.
If I'm not mistaken Vlad Dracula is seen as a national hero in Rumania so I have the suspicion his reign was not sufficiently dystopic to merit being placed on this list.
Sparta was quiet horrible place, even if you wasn't Helot. If you was a male, your whole life since early childhood was just total military practise.
The only military training the Spartans did which the other Greek city states did not do consisted out of mere basic formation drills.
Females' only purposes were making clothes, food and birth new Spartans.
How was that different from the other Greek city states? Also I thought in Sparta making clothes was seen as something for slaves and Spartiate women ridiculed the citizen women of other cities who took pride in their craft of making clothes.
Life was really harsh even with standards of the time. It almost looked like proto-nazi state.
For the Helots yes, but the Spartiates were basically just another bunch of leisured aristocrats who spend their time hunting and making poetry.
 
Rome, for the Jews.

Perhaps some periods in Rome were pretty bad for Jews but I don't think that it was whole the time really bad. At least hardly much worse than in any other places where just was Jews at this time. Beside mass expulsion from Judea I can't think what other bad things Romans did with them. It should notice that Roman state was exist in many forms about 2000 years. Surely for such time there is many different ways how Roman treatend Jews.
 
If I'm not mistaken Vlad Dracula is seen as a national hero in Rumania so I have the suspicion his reign was not sufficiently dystopic to merit being placed on this list.

I suspect the line between Utopia and Dystopia is disconsertingly opaque, depending how who one is and what their station in life is at a time. Nor should one rule out the way in which historical memory and legend can change and be co-opted over time: whatever Vlad's later reputation, he was overthrown by his own people defecting to the side of his opponents, which hint at fairly significant opposition to his rule. Furthermore, the positive depictions of his life really dont start being produced until about three centuries after his death.
 

Dagoth Ur

Banned
Rome, for the Jews.
Like when Jews in the Roman Empire rose in revolt at the beginning of the Kotos War and killed tens of thousands of civilian gentiles? The Jews were treated no differently than any other conquered people. In fact even better, the Romans were prepared to allow them their own Rome-sponsored king.
 
- 1491 : The Americas before Columbus

I agree with the person you disagree with and as such disagree with your disagreement. Sure the Aztec Empire wasn't a particularly nice place to live but I very much believe the levels of ritual death practiced in the Aztec Empire are overblown and taken out of the context of the time period it existed within.

I don't think so, considering other native states thought it was a bit extreme too.

For myself, I nominate Queen Ranavalona of Madagascar- reduced the population of the Island by half in 6 years through her brutality. 19th century but pretty pre industrial.
 
Ancient Sparta was pretty dystopian, at least if you were a Helot.
Tbh it sounds pretty dystopian to have been a Spartan too. If their legends are anything to go by, dying horribly was better than admitting a mistake which is a terrible way to live.
Also, the Aztecs and their mass human sacrifices.
But the Aztecs have to take the cake
Aside from the sacrifices (and I appreciate that is a huge aside), general Aztec life wasn't dystopian at all.
 
By Ancient Europe, you're talking about pre-Roman, Roman Republic, Roman Empire?
Thanks. I stand corrected.
Yes. Basically, the ancient Romans and Greeks saw poverty as something to excite contempt rather than pity. Whilst you occasionally had politicians appealing to the poor in order to try and boost their political position, there was no sense that the rich in general had any obligation to the poor in general.

- 1491 : The Americas before Columbus
There's a difference between executing someone for a crime and sacrificing them, even if people watch in both cases. And religious beliefs are pretty foundational to a person or society's worldview. If your society believes that the gods are bloodthirsty and require constant killing to stop them destroying the world, that's going to seep into your entire outlook beyond just the number of people being killed.

Even the people who never saw met an inquisitor would've been deeply aware of the Inquisition and the knowledge that if anyone suspected their conversions weren't sincere they'd be punished. Living knowing all of that would've been terrifying. ;)
That's just Black Legend-style propaganda. As a matter of fact the Spanish Inquisition arguably gave accused people more legal protections than the secular courts of the time, and they certainly didn't go around burning people on mere accusations or suspicions.

The only military training the Spartans did which the other Greek city states did not do consisted out of mere basic formation drills.
Kinda. The only explicit military training consisted of formation drills, but a lot of the Spartan lifestyle was intended to make them physically tough and enduring, which was in turn supposed to make them into better soldiers.
 
Did the Pharaoh really have almost complete control over the nation? They were a Bronze Age state--even if the Pharaoh had de jure control, practically I wouldn't be surprised if the state's footprint wasn't much, much lower than it is today. And it's the de facto status of the Pharaoh's control that matters for most people.
There were always 2 or more Vizirs, usually one for lower and one for upper Egypt, who acted as governors in the regions and run the day to day bureaucracy in his name. The power of the Pharaoh depended on the support by the noble, land holding families, you keep them on your side by making sure there's enough positions in temples, the military and civil offices available for second sons and occasionally daughters, positions with some power, prestige, influence and most importantly with a right to receive an income from the lands attached to these institutions. In later dynasties the nobility gained more and more power over the state, it's quite telling that the monumental buildings one most associates with ancient Egypt, the Pyramids, were constructed in the earliest dynasties where the Pharaoh had the most power and could command the resources and men necessary for their construction.
 
Top