Most totalitarian society pre 1900's?

John Calvin's Geneva is the great granddaddy of every totalitarian state, down to the meticulous regulation of everyday people's lives so they would not dare waste their time. The medieval Catholic Church at least had plenty of religious festivals. Calvinist Geneva, on the other hand, reads like a clockpunk 1984.

But surely a major sign of a totalitarian state is the extent of conformity? If Calvin's Geneva (or Cromwell's England and so on) had been a totalitarian state presumerably the consistory wouldn't have had to keep reprimanding people for dancing, drunkeness, adultery and so on and so forth? They should have been able to control the situation to the point where it didn't happen at all.

To answer the question you need to decide what makes a totalitarian state. I think what makes a totalitarian state is the social situation where everyone is viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a political animal but they are compelled to all adopt the politics of those in power and it is impossible to do otherwise by threat or actuality of force. Thus everyone is expected not only to be ambivolent to the regime in power but actively in favour.

Prior to the French Revolution and the rise of nationalism and such ideas in the following century most people in the world are not political. The majority accept the overlordship of whoever is their government with an agreement not to rebel but in exchange great demands are not really placed upon them. Ofcourse this varies from region to region and age to age. I would say for example that the Reformation made Europeans religious and from there political, upon that issue atleast, but religion is arguably only one aspect of political life and after the 30 years war was once which wasn't pushed that much for another two hundred plus years.

So Sparta might be an option, but only if you focused upon the citizens. I suspect that most ancient and even most pre-modern states appear fairly totalitarian if you remove the politically inactive population. The idea after all that you can have political opposition to the current government which is still loyal to the society in question seems something it is relatively rare and novel to liberal societies.
 
Jesuit reductions of Paraguay?
They existed for one-and-half century, and the Fathers (being unelected) regulated all aspects of the Guarani's society. Major part of land was communal (in fact, state) property, and food was obtained from the communal stores.
 
Aztecs, no! There was a lot of freedom. Tenochtititlan only cared that tribute arrived on time and you fed and provided for all of its soldiers, after that they were pretty open about what each conquered people could do.

The Incas, maybe. Its difficult to tell our information on them is sparse and biased.
 
Toliteriaism, in my view, is the state, nothing beside the state, nothing outside the state.
Possibly Aztecs, Alexander's Empire, Roman Empire.
 
Those who said Paraguay from the Jesuits to Solano Lopez - definitely.

In the 19th century you had a family who ruled the entire nation as one massive estate, treating everyone beneath them as menial labour to be hired and fired as neccessary. Jose de Francia, the First Perpetual Dictator, had all the dogs in Asuncion shot because he suspected people were training them to attack them. He also banned Europeans from marrying anyone else of European blood. If that isn't totalitarianism, I don't know what is.
 
The Spartans were no where near fascist, unless one is applying a very generalized and wrong definition to them. One can't go about using modern terms for ancient socities because there will also be, as you mention, 'though'. The meaning of dictator has changed over the years also, the modern connotations aren't present in earlier usages.

I suppose you're right. They were the definition of militaristic though.

I guess another hallmark I'm looking for is strong central authority. i.e. a malcontent regional governor would not only be too afraid to rebel, but would also be crushed very quickly and his supporters thoroughly and ruthlessly purged if he even dared to try, and the likelihood of a malcontent being allowed to be a regional governor in the first place would be very very small.

What about Louis XIV's France? Was absolutism mainly a palace doctrine, or did his government have pervasive reach throughout the nation and great sway over the citizens?
 
What about ancient Egypt, ruled by the gods themselves? I think it was very oppressed by tradition and caste systems.
 
What about ancient Egypt, ruled by the gods themselves? I think it was very oppressed by tradition and caste systems.

Egypt didn't really have the technology to oppress the people that much. It was the Egyptians' fear of chaos that kept them in line more than anything the Pharaoh did.
 
Egypt didn't really have the technology to oppress the people that much. It was the Egyptians' fear of chaos that kept them in line more than anything the Pharaoh did.

Couldn't you argue that is even more totalitarian in a way than even what we have today since the people don't even require the leader to take any oppressive action? And also since this system will put hige controls on the leadership as well, everyone is trapped.
 
Couldn't you argue that is even more totalitarian in a way than even what we have today since the people don't even require the leader to take any oppressive action? And also since this system will put hige controls on the leadership as well, everyone is trapped.

I suppose you could argue that, but I think "rigid" or "repressed" would be better descriptions.
 
But surely a major sign of a totalitarian state is the extent of conformity?

Er, no. All totalitarian states have a lot of repression.

If Calvin's Geneva (or Cromwell's England and so on) had been a totalitarian state presumerably the consistory wouldn't have had to keep reprimanding people for dancing, drunkeness, adultery and so on and so forth? They should have been able to control the situation to the point where it didn't happen at all.

I think that the fact of setting up laws preventing such kind of things is totalitarian enough, specially at a time where the state did not care so much about what the populace did in its spare time besides seeing to which god it prayed.

If you don't like Calvin's example, Savonarola's Florence is its catholic version. Complete with children being encouraged to denounce their parents for owning mirrors or lavish garments.
 
Spain 1490-1700, thats my bet, Reconquista, kicking the Jews out, the Spanish Inquisition, Eighty Years' War, ect....

How would you account for the relative, well, not freedom, but largely a hands off approach in their colonies then? Spain didn't even need large numbers of troops in the colonies until late during the independence uprisings. Indians were exempt from the Inquisition, and conquistadores defied the crown all the time.
 
Totalitarianism requires a sufficient advancement of technology to allow the state to control and dominate all aspects of the society. Very few pre 20th century states have the degree of control to eliminate all competing sources of authority and power. In pre-modern times, the most likely candidates may be extremely small nations, or subcultures (religious cults, communal movements, etc)within a larger, less-totalitarian society. But I might suggest the following larger polities, most of which have already been mentioned:

Sparta (oppressive state with significant control of private life)
The Inca Empire (very organized, nearly communist/redistributive imperial govt - if one believes the way it has been described by apologists - I don't)
Czarist Russia
France under Louis XIV
France under the post-revolutionary directorate
Some of the New England Puritan colonies
 
Spain 1490-1700, thats my bet, Reconquista, kicking the Jews out, the Spanish Inquisition, Eighty Years' War, ect....

So your motives for your choice are: something that had already ended in the timeframe you speak of; something every european country except Poland did, something every european country had until the Reformation and an independence war? Talk about the Black Legend... :rolleyes:
 
Top