Dystopian Pre Industrial Societies/States

[Kerney]

I agree strongly with St. Just that Rome was pretty dystopian. What is disturbing is how many fan boys it has.

I come onto the anti Aztec side of this argument because, to be part of a society that believes you have to hit your sacrifice quota each month or the world ends must mess with your psyche no matter how decent your material life is.

One not named-- Chacoan puebloan society in the 11th century. Human sacrifice and cannibalism, followed with a 50% child mortality rate and large scale social inequality (part of why modern pueblos are highly communalistic I suspect).

Question? has anyone besides me seen a couple societies others named that they admire or respect? For me it was the Inca and Iroquois. Anabaptist Munster seems okayish and the problems seemed to have come with conservative aristocrats rallying against it. But I don't know enough about it to judge.

 

[DanMcCollum]

I'd also add: The Third Dynasty of Ur.

The society appears to have been a Bronze Age controlled economy that was so centralized it bears some resemblance to some 20th centruy regimes. It looks to be highly stratified, with everyone being put to work for the good of the state (though there DOES seem to have been efforts to take care of those who could no longer work at least - so there is that!) Still, probably not a particularly enjoyable place to live.

 

[CommieScum]

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.


Aside from the sacrifices (and I appreciate that is a huge aside), general Aztec life wasn't dystopian at all.

Aside from one feature, Nazi Germany wasn't that bad? Most of the sacrifices were captured enemies so it may not be bad for the citizenry, but its pretty fucking bad

 

[CommieScum]

I agree strongly with St. Just that Rome was pretty dystopian. What is disturbing is how many fan boys it has.


Question? has anyone besides me seen a couple societies others named that they admire or respect? For me it was the Inca and Iroquois.

Why do you admire the Incas and Iroquois? Because of the incredible systems and structures they created, or because of the human sacrifice and genocide?Why is it justified in your mind to not disregard the Incas and Iroquois, but not Rome?

 

[sampleswift]

Tbf we see a lot of the problems of modern societies in ancient/classical ones?
Systemic poverty? Most ancient or classical societies faced that problem.
Imperialism/Expansionism? Any empire will face this.
Autocratic rule? Most empire or kingdoms in the pre-industrial era faced this?
Consistent warfare? Ancient and classical periods weren't known for being peaceful.

"You wouldn't want to live in the Ancient or Classical eras..."

 

[Salvador79]

Just gave a seminar on dystopias.
Bottom line:
You can ask which places in real history were particularly horrible, and the answer will always depend on and reveal which standards, values, norms you apply.

Or you can ask which Texts / tales in past societies were intended as or understood as something conceptually similar to how we define dystopian tales today.
Then, you will see how the prophecies of the Old Testament and the Apocalypse of John, anti-utopian dark satires from Aristophanes to Swift, and other tales of the end of the world like the Norse Ragnarök are precursors of modern dystopian tales. You'll notice the relative absence of deities in modern dystopian stories, but other than that, from the posture as a mere mouthpiece, the Intention to warn, to the details of Injustice, violence and natural collapse, much ist similar.

Mid-20th century classical anti-utopian dystopias like Orwell's, Huxley's, Zamyatin's or Bradbury's, all reflect their age's fear of totalitarianism.
Postmodern dystopias often feature ecological collapse, the dangers of artificial intelligence etc.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I agree strongly with St. Just that Rome was pretty dystopian. What is disturbing is how many fan boys it has.

There certainly were aspects of Roman culture which were pretty messed-up (the gladiatorial games for one), but from what we can tell it looks like the average standard of living was higher during the Empire than in the periods before and after it, so it seems a stretch to describe it as a dystopia, IMHO.

The society appears to have been a Bronze Age controlled economy that was so centralized it bears some resemblance to some 20th centruy regimes. It looks to be highly stratified, with everyone being put to work for the good of the state (though there DOES seem to have been efforts to take care of those who could no longer work at least - so there is that!) Still, probably not a particularly enjoyable place to live.

It's worth bearing in mind that 90+% of almost any premodern society would have to be farmers, simply because agriculture wasn't productive enough to support more non-farming people. In such circumstances, I don't think that a controlled economy would be as dystopian as it would be now: if you're going to do the same sort of work no matter what, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference whether that work's for a feudal landowner, temple bureaucrat, or even for yourself as a free but poor peasant farmer.

 

[DanMcCollum]

There certainly were aspects of Roman culture which were pretty messed-up (the gladiatorial games for one), but from what we can tell it looks like the average standard of living was higher during the Empire than in the periods before and after it, so it seems a stretch to describe it as a dystopia, IMHO.

It's worth bearing in mind that 90+% of almost any premodern society would have to be farmers, simply because agriculture wasn't productive enough to support more non-farming people. In such circumstances, I don't think that a controlled economy would be as dystopian as it would be now: if you're going to do the same sort of work no matter what, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference whether that work's for a feudal landowner, temple bureaucrat, or even for yourself as a free but poor peasant farmer.

I'll have to find my notes that I did about Ur III after I went through a bit of a Mesopotamian kick early in the year. Everything I read seemed to make them sound ... extreme, even for that era. Though I suppose that could be authorial interpretation, I did some upon that same thread more than once.

 

[Qastiel]

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.

I mean they did sacrifice more than their neighbours but that's primarily due to them being an expansionist empire that kept getting into a lot of wars and therefore had a dearth of war captives to sacrifice. It's hardly as if war captives had fun experiences anywhere in the world at this period of time, they usually ended up dead or enslaved elsewhere in the world.

That's not dystopic. That's just having an expansionist neighbour. And I'm of the opinion that while expansionist neighbours are shit in general, it's hardly dystopic.

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.

Not much of a difference. Both public executions and Aztec human sacrifices served as ritual actions that demonstrated royal power. For the Aztecs it was a recalling for the spiritual justification of the Empire and for, say, England it was a reassertion of the ruler's divine power that had been affronted by said criminal. In both cases there are religious connotations to what is essentially a reinforcement of political power by the ritual sacrifice of those who had the misfortune of turning against the ruler, be it a criminal or a war captive.

You can't really separate political and religious authority in this time period.

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.

So the Spanish Inquisition wasn't an institution that went around torturing and executing people on the basis of someone's conversion not being sincere enough? Okay. If you say so, I suppose. Sure I agree the modern pop culture view of the spanish inquisition is overblown based on propaganda but jeez, kinda funny I'd bring this up when talking about how the modern pop culture view of the Aztecs is fundamentally derived from Spanish justifications for their exploitations and genocides of the mesoamericans.

Meanwhile in reality, there very much were trials and executions and the practice of torture to get confessions done to the conversos and moriscos which very much did contribute to an atmosphere of terror and fear in the territories that were once al-andalus. And these campaigns and this terror-filled environment whereupon these ex-subjects of the muslim amirs were indeed forced to wear clothing and were otherwise oppressed. Hence the various times the miriscos did rebel.

Hence why the morisocos were ultimately expelled. The official death toll may be low in respects to executions done by the spanish inquisition but that fails to taken into account the estimated 100,000 people who died in prison or as a result of torture. It's telling the Portuguese had much lower death figures for their inquisition.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Not much of a difference. Both public executions and Aztec human sacrifices served as ritual actions that demonstrated royal power. For the Aztecs it was a recalling for the spiritual justification of the Empire and for, say, England it was a reassertion of the ruler's divine power that had been affronted by said criminal. In both cases there are religious connotations to what is essentially a reinforcement of political power by the ritual sacrifice of those who had the misfortune of turning against the ruler, be it a criminal or a war captive.

You can't really separate political and religious authority in this time period.

"Who had the misfortune of turning against the ruler, be it as a criminal or a war captive" Sorry, but this is just obtuse. Some guy who goes around stealing, murdering or raping until he's caught and hanged isn't just the victim of unfortunate circumstance, and he's causing more harm than simply "affronting the ruler's divine power" or whatever. That's completely different to the case of someone who gets captured by a foreign country specifically to be sacrificed to their gods.

Sure I agree the modern pop culture view of the spanish inquisition is overblown based on propaganda but jeez, kinda funny I'd bring this up when talking about how the modern pop culture view of the Aztecs is fundamentally derived from Spanish justifications for their exploitations and genocides of the mesoamericans.

Firstly, there's nothing absurd, or even particularly likely, about pop culture being right about one thing and wrong about another.

Secondly, there are plenty of Aztec depictions and accounts of human sacrifice, and archaeological evidence of it as well, so this isn't just something the Spaniards made up after the fact.

Hence why the morisocos were ultimately expelled. The official death toll may be low in respects to executions done by the spanish inquisition but that fails to taken into account the estimated 100,000 people who died in prison or as a result of torture. It's telling the Portuguese had much lower death figures for their inquisition.

Estimated by whom, exactly?

 

[CountPeter]

Aside from one feature, Nazi Germany wasn't that bad? Most of the sacrifices were captured enemies so it may not be bad for the citizenry, but its pretty fucking bad

The huge difference is that we can't really say that Nazi Germany was good if not for one feature. Without the Holocaust as an example, Nazi Germany is still a hell hole for its time.

Meanwhile, the sacrificial aspect of the Aztec world wasn't in and of itself the worst thing for its time period and arguably had some positive utility RE the flower wars and their lessening the utter destruction of warfare that similar cultures might endure.
To be clear, sacrifice is obviously a bad thing, but it's hard to say that because of that one bad thing that Aztec society on the whole was dystopian when it was pretty good for a culture of it's technological capabilities. Comparing it to say comparitive Eurasian polities (or even iron age cultures), we see the Aztecs with some really advanced hydroponics, medical techniques, social mobility etc.

So whilst we can reasonably point to Sparta as something not only horrific, but horrific by the cultural standards of its period for everyone involved, the Aztecs by comparison just weren't dystopian (which is the point of this thread).

 

[Citrakayah]

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.

This is so different from what the Aztecs actually believed that it's kind of impressive. I'm pretty disappointed to see a misunderstanding this bad on a history forum. Like, I swear, sometimes it's like everyone knows lots of shit about a province of Germany but when it comes to anything outside Europe, even massive regions, even well-established members spread misinformation like this.

Firstly, I have no idea where you got the idea that the "gods were bloodthirsty and required constant killing to stop them from destroying the world." Even the common interpretation has the gods requiring sacrifice because maintaining the cycles of the world requires they expend energy, and that energy has to be restored via sacrifice (of a variety of things, not just human lives).

Secondly, as far as the priests were concerned, Aztec "gods" were not quite so much independent distinct beings as manifestations of a singular underlying energy. The purpose of sacrifice was not to appease or strengthen some distinct person, but is better viewed as a form of sympathetic magic done in order to maintain the natural cycles of the world. Look up teotl.

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.

Considering the courts of the time, this is hardly great praise.

"Who had the misfortune of turning against the ruler, be it as a criminal or a war captive" Sorry, but this is just obtuse. Some guy who goes around stealing, murdering or raping until he's caught and hanged isn't just the victim of unfortunate circumstance, and he's causing more harm than simply "affronting the ruler's divine power" or whatever. That's completely different to the case of someone who gets captured by a foreign country specifically to be sacrificed to their gods.

1. As you are surely well aware, these punishments were not only reserved for those going around "stealing, murdering, or raping," you also got subject to them if you rebelled against the king... who was believed to have the divine right to rule. And the punishments for treason were considerably nastier than theft or rape.
2. Generally, the Aztecs didn't capture people "specifically to be sacrificed to their gods." They captured someone in the course of normal warfare, which was done in order to exact tribute.

Yes, I'm aware of the Flower Wars between them and Tlaxcala, however, it's my understanding that the Triple Alliance's narrative for why they were unable to subdue the Tlaxcalan Confederacy is looked at rather skeptically, and it's believed the Flower Wars were genuinely attempts to exact tribute.

 

[Qastiel]

"Who had the misfortune of turning against the ruler, be it as a criminal or a war captive" Sorry, but this is just obtuse. Some guy who goes around stealing, murdering or raping until he's caught and hanged isn't just the victim of unfortunate circumstance, and he's causing more harm than simply "affronting the ruler's divine power" or whatever. That's completely different to the case of someone who gets captured by a foreign country specifically to be sacrificed to their gods.

Calm down with the moral grandstanding. I've literally not made any statement one way or another about morality in either case. I'm only saying that both the pageantry and ritual of public executions of European kingdoms and ritual sacrifice of the Aztecs fundamentally served as the exercising of royal power to the masses and bolstered political and religious authority of rulers. If you want to criticise me, criticise that and don't call me obtuse.

I've not mentioned any sort of comparison beyond the two processes beyond what I've previously stated.

Firstly, there's nothing absurd, or even particularly likely, about pop culture being right about one thing and wrong about another.

Secondly, there are plenty of Aztec depictions and accounts of human sacrifice, and archaeological evidence of it as well, so this isn't just something the Spaniards made up after the fact.

Have I even once denied that human sacrifice was a very real part of Aztec and wider mesoamerican culture? Don't strawman me.

Estimated by whom, exactly?

Joseph Pérez, The Spanish Inquisition

Now I could've cited contemporary critics of the Spanish Inquisition like Juan Antonio Llorente who had like 31,000 deliberate executions but I am actually in the camp that contemporary critics did exaggerate the direct death toll. Though I guess direct death toll doesn't mean much given the "minor punishments" were still kinda bad and in the end the whole ordeal did ultimately result in massive expulsions of people who were left near-penniless refugees. The Spanish Inquisition did seem to master the art of seizing your property and then merely fining you which I'm sure wouldn't be too difficult to pay off with all your property seized.

Aside from one feature, Nazi Germany wasn't that bad? Most of the sacrifices were captured enemies so it may not be bad for the citizenry, but its pretty fucking bad

I missed this before but if you have citations that war captives in other parts of the world as a whole had better experiences? This is a genuine question btw, my reading of historians of mesoamerica seem to suggest that elsewhere in the world war captives were either killed or enslaved of they weren't wealthy so if you can provide evidence otherwise then by all means.

Yes, I'm aware of the Flower Wars between them and Tlaxcala, however, it's my understanding that the Triple Alliance's narrative for why they were unable to subdue the Tlaxcalan Confederacy is looked at rather skeptically, and it's believed the Flower Wars were genuinely attempts to exact tribute.

Yeah, the Flower Wars were just imperial justification for why the Triple Alliance couldn't conquer them. Tlaxcalla's social organisation made it able to field surprisingly large armies for its size which helped in rebuffing the Aztecs and their vassals.

"I-It's not like I actually wanted to conquer you, b-baka!"

 

[Citrakayah]

Also, re: everyone talking about the Iroquois committing genocide, what are you talking about?

There certainly were aspects of Roman culture which were pretty messed-up (the gladiatorial games for one), but from what we can tell it looks like the average standard of living was higher during the Empire than in the periods before and after it, so it seems a stretch to describe it as a dystopia, IMHO.

The average standard of living for the Aztecs was better than what came afterwards. That doesn't seem to be much of a defense to you, though.

 

[Kerney]

Why do you admire the Incas and Iroquois? Because of the incredible systems and structures they created, or because of the human sacrifice and genocide?Why is it justified in your mind to not disregard the Incas and Iroquois, but not Rome?

Iroquois-- Adopted their captives rather than enslaved, relatively flat social structure, great 'constitution'. Basically a society where you had a pretty good chance of having a good life. Probably one of the better options pre 1500.

Inca-- Yes, a conquering empire that worked hard at assimilation. Yes, human sacrifice but not more than a lot of societies. But they provided up and down the social structure ladder with a real safety net and an attempt to govern well. Yes, you had to work for the state for a time, but that was not an uncommon 'tax'. Not the best place to live but not dystopian by a long shot.

Rome-- Genocide and enslavement on a massive scale, long periods of warfare between rivals. Contempt for the poor and a steep social pyramid. Also, being the model for divine right of kings for 2000 years.

 

[Citrakayah]

One not named-- Chacoan puebloan society in the 11th century. Human sacrifice and cannibalism, followed with a 50% child mortality rate and large scale social inequality (part of why modern pueblos are highly communalistic I suspect).

Can you provide more detail? This sounds interesting.

 

[Dagoth Ur]

Iroquois-- Adopted their captives rather than enslaved, relatively flat social structure, great 'constitution'. Basically a society where you had a pretty good chance of having a good life. Probably one of the better options pre 1500.

Inca-- Yes, a conquering empire that worked hard at assimilation. Yes, human sacrifice but not more than a lot of societies. But they provided up and down the social structure ladder with a real safety net and an attempt to govern well. Yes, you had to work for the state for a time, but that was not an uncommon 'tax'. Not the best place to live but not dystopian by a long shot.

Rome-- Genocide and enslavement on a massive scale, long periods of warfare between rivals. Contempt for the poor and a steep social pyramid. Also, being the model for divine right of kings for 2000 years.

Was the Iroquois social structure flat organically, and prior to 1500, or did it develop afterward out of the societal collapse caused by mass epidemic deaths?

 

[CommieScum]

Iroquois-- Adopted their captives rather than enslaved, relatively flat social structure, great 'constitution'. Basically a society where you had a pretty good chance of having a good life. Probably one of the better options pre 1500.

Inca-- Yes, a conquering empire that worked hard at assimilation. Yes, human sacrifice but not more than a lot of societies. But they provided up and down the social structure ladder with a real safety net and an attempt to govern well. Yes, you had to work for the state for a time, but that was not an uncommon 'tax'. Not the best place to live but not dystopian by a long shot.

Rome-- Genocide and enslavement on a massive scale, long periods of warfare between rivals. Contempt for the poor and a steep social pyramid. Also, being the model for divine right of kings for 2000 years.

This is selective and biased. The Iroquois were genocidal. If you are judging based on their own citizenry than it is another matter up to debate.

>Adopted their captives rather than enslaved

Iroquois attacks resulted in the dispersal, extermi- nation, and incorporation of Iroquoian and non-Iroquoian peoples. A review of the sources, including the Jesuit Relations, and other more modern sources, indicates that Iroquois large-scale attacks approached genocidal proportions.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14623520120097215?journalCode=cjgr20

"long periods of rivalry between rivals" - a completely foreign concept to the Inca. "Contempt for the poor" lmao, unlike the rest of the world?

Honestly you seem to be whitewashing the two groups as noble savages.

 

[Citrakayah]

>Adopted their captives rather than enslaved

Your quote doesn't actually address that part of Kerney's argument. Demonstrating that the Iroquois engaged in genocidal warfare against others does not mean that they did not adopt their captives rather than enslave them. Your own paper specifically notes that the Iroquois typically absorbed defeated ethnic groups; while this did lead to the extinction of the ethnic group you personally remained alive.

 

[CommieScum]

Your quote doesn't actually address that part of Kerney's argument. Demonstrating that the Iroquois engaged in genocidal warfare against others does not mean that they did not adopt their captives rather than enslave them. Your own paper specifically notes that the Iroquois typically absorbed defeated ethnic groups; while this did lead to the extinction of the ethnic group you personally remained alive.

You stayed alive as a slave too then. I am just unsure how it is a point in the Iroquois's favor, as it seems to have been presented