What gave Premodern Republics their legitimacy?

I've been doing a paper on Hammurabi's famed code of laws, specifically the prologue, and in it, the topic of the divine rights of kings and the need to legitimize government came up several times. I know why modern day parliamentary governments are legitimate, but what about premodern ones? Before the enlightenment? Like the Italian republics, or that brief, brief stint in Athens, or the famous senates of Qart-Hadasht and Roma? Especially in the renaissance italian case, what gave them their legitimacy? Why did they have the right to rule?
 
Basically, if the gods can will one man to rule in other lands, why cannot the gods will that free men come together in assembly to decide the fate of the nation?
 
Basically, if the gods can will one man to rule in other lands, why cannot the gods will that free men come together in assembly to decide the fate of the nation?

It's really that simple? That's . . . actually incredibly baffling.
 
It's really that simple? That's . . . actually incredibly baffling.

Not as baffling as giving over the power of life and death to a single person and his family for whatever reason. Which is what the divine right of kings amounts to.

Democracy seems like the most natural thing. All those of the community who are able decide as a whole on what the whole community will do. Which sooner or later falls into the hands of a few active and charismatic people, because people are lazy and so go along with them. Of course, if those few go out of the bounds of the community, the community will lash out.

At least, that's as far as I understand it. Granted, it's probably more complicated than that.
 
Last edited:
As far as I understand it, most of those Republic were bourgeoises, made of the uppest upper class. See the senators in Rome, Athen...
So in those case I would imagine the power comes from having the most money and influence.
They were the guys with the biggest stick and your livelyhood in their hand and in some cases could raise army to defend their point (Late Roman Republic)
 
I've been doing a paper on Hammurabi's famed code of laws, specifically the prologue, and in it, the topic of the divine rights of kings and the need to legitimize government came up several times. I know why modern day parliamentary governments are legitimate, but what about premodern ones? Before the enlightenment? Like the Italian republics, or that brief, brief stint in Athens, or the famous senates of Qart-Hadasht and Roma? Especially in the renaissance italian case, what gave them their legitimacy? Why did they have the right to rule?

It is not quite the case of divine mandate but you should find each of those Republics had a founding myth. The Romans it was the overthrow of Tarquinus Superbus which has a whole sordid sex thing going on being Roman...but to cut a long story short those kings* were raping Roman women.

Look to the founding myth of each Republic and there you will find your source of legitimacy.

*technically it was the king's son but why let that get in the way?
 
A republic was perfectly feasible as long as your dealing with city-states and maybe rural ones of Swiss-canton size. And of course Divine sanction can be claimed for any form of government. "Legitimacy" just means "how we're used to doing things".

Thing get harder once large states appear on the scene. Communications being what they were back then, only those in and around the capital can turn up and vote. If places further away are allowed to send delegates, these can only be the ones rich enough to make the Journey. Either situation creates problems and the Republic tends to break down. Also, of course, large states tend to require standing armies, whose commanders may not feel inclined to take orders from civvies in a distant capital. And the rest is history.
 
It's really that simple? That's . . . actually incredibly baffling.
Really? Why baffling? The idea that you and I, who live together, should treat each other as we want to be treated, seems rather natural, and so does the idea that when there`s a conflict, the party which has more angry men on their side would prevail over the minority (a very broken-down understanding of democracy=popular rule). Now of course the idea that some people - especially those with more experience, a large cohesive family, achievements, wealth etc. - will be more listened to than, say, dim-witted orphan teenage boys, is also rather deep-rooted. If you look at pre-civilised societies, you`ll find proto-democratic and proto-aristocratic elements often combined. What you don´t find there and what only came up in complex societies is the extreme centralisation of a monarchy and divine kingship.

The detailed picture is, of course, more differentiated. Firstly because of the tendencies of oligarchisation already mentioned. And secondly because the republics you alluded to emerged in different contexts and from different historical traditions.

In Classical Greece, poleis were "constitutional" from far before Kleisthenes, in the sense that they combined elements of various strands of political customs into intricate political systems. They balanced out the interests of yeomen farmers and merchant oligarchies. As society changed, so did these constitutions, and the Athenian example is not a singulary phenomenon, only the best documented and most powerful one situated rather at one end of a wide spectrum. To pre-Alexandrian Greeks, the idea you consider more natural was abhorrent: "tyranneia". Tyranneia was rejected not only by Athenians; Thebans, Spartans etc. likewise abhorred it, or so did at least the philosophers we`re basing our historical picture on. A somewhat similar picture could be drawn for the Punics.

In Rome, the res publica evolved from tribal traditions into a constitutional model, too, perhaps under Hellenic influence, and here, too, the idea of a monarchic "rex" enjoying absolute or even divine power was abhorred, too, for many centuries. Now of course the Roman Republic expanded so far that it needed a degree of centralisation and militarisation which, combined, simply blew up the republican constitution. Mark that the Principate was, on the central level, a de facto monarchy, but on the local levels, which did most of the day to day politics, oligarchic structures continued unabated.

In India, early republican structures emerged from a constitutionalisation of tribal traditions, too. What eliminated them, from the Gupta age onwards, was a segmentarisation of oligarchised republican customs into separately acting "jati" (castes? guilds? difficult to say for that age), which was easy to be overarched by a mandala system of feudal military rulers above - or beside - it.

Among the Germanic and Slavic peoples, (first ritual, then military) kingship combined for centuries with democratic assemblies (Things, Veches) where conflicts were resolved and common decisions were taken. Now, these were tribal structures. The reason why they developed into feudalist ones is the heavy Late Roman influence.

Republican structures - a broad umbrella term anyway - emerged almost everywhere in the world, although there were times when they were more prevalent and others when this was less so, and there were regions with less republican traditions (China, Egypt) and others with more (Europe, India). Their legitimacy was never generally or universally questioned as such. It derived from local traditions, both orally transmitted and fixed in written constitutions, and was elaborated on by philosophers. The same goes for the divine kingship you portrayed as a counterpart, too, of course.
 
i would consider greece democratic, the kind of democratic structure that we have nowadays has more in common with germanic tribal rules, where the leader actually was elected, and thus if someone wanted to be elected he had to appease people, thus creating a defacto democratic process.
and what makes something like that legitimate, simply tradition, it evolved to doing things that way, and the habit stuck, and after a while it embedded in culture and thus became tradition.
the whole 'legitimate' statement is only used if someone wants to claim a position...with no outside stress, the only reason is..."because we decided to do it this way"
 
Really? Why baffling? The idea that you and I, who live together, should treat each other as we want to be treated, seems rather natural, and so does the idea that when there`s a conflict, the party which has more angry men on their side would prevail over the minority (a very broken-down understanding of democracy=popular rule). Now of course the idea that some people - especially those with more experience, a large cohesive family, achievements, wealth etc. - will be more listened to than, say, dim-witted orphan teenage boys, is also rather deep-rooted. If you look at pre-civilised societies, you`ll find proto-democratic and proto-aristocratic elements often combined. What you don´t find there and what only came up in complex societies is the extreme centralisation of a monarchy and divine kingship.

The detailed picture is, of course, more differentiated. Firstly because of the tendencies of oligarchisation already mentioned. And secondly because the republics you alluded to emerged in different contexts and from different historical traditions.

In Classical Greece, poleis were "constitutional" from far before Kleisthenes, in the sense that they combined elements of various strands of political customs into intricate political systems. They balanced out the interests of yeomen farmers and merchant oligarchies. As society changed, so did these constitutions, and the Athenian example is not a singulary phenomenon, only the best documented and most powerful one situated rather at one end of a wide spectrum. To pre-Alexandrian Greeks, the idea you consider more natural was abhorrent: "tyranneia". Tyranneia was rejected not only by Athenians; Thebans, Spartans etc. likewise abhorred it, or so did at least the philosophers we`re basing our historical picture on. A somewhat similar picture could be drawn for the Punics.

In Rome, the res publica evolved from tribal traditions into a constitutional model, too, perhaps under Hellenic influence, and here, too, the idea of a monarchic "rex" enjoying absolute or even divine power was abhorred, too, for many centuries. Now of course the Roman Republic expanded so far that it needed a degree of centralisation and militarisation which, combined, simply blew up the republican constitution. Mark that the Principate was, on the central level, a de facto monarchy, but on the local levels, which did most of the day to day politics, oligarchic structures continued unabated.

In India, early republican structures emerged from a constitutionalisation of tribal traditions, too. What eliminated them, from the Gupta age onwards, was a segmentarisation of oligarchised republican customs into separately acting "jati" (castes? guilds? difficult to say for that age), which was easy to be overarched by a mandala system of feudal military rulers above - or beside - it.

Among the Germanic and Slavic peoples, (first ritual, then military) kingship combined for centuries with democratic assemblies (Things, Veches) where conflicts were resolved and common decisions were taken. Now, these were tribal structures. The reason why they developed into feudalist ones is the heavy Late Roman influence.

Republican structures - a broad umbrella term anyway - emerged almost everywhere in the world, although there were times when they were more prevalent and others when this was less so, and there were regions with less republican traditions (China, Egypt) and others with more (Europe, India). Their legitimacy was never generally or universally questioned as such. It derived from local traditions, both orally transmitted and fixed in written constitutions, and was elaborated on by philosophers. The same goes for the divine kingship you portrayed as a counterpart, too, of course.

Thank you for explaining it so well. I'd also like to make clear that I wasn't baffled by the existence of legitimacy for republics, I was baffled by the first proposed source, as it seemed to be a copy of divine ordinance for monarchs.

I do have a question though- you say it was the same for the Punics? So did they have a concept of tyranny too? Where did they get it from?
 
Thank you for explaining it so well. I'd also like to make clear that I wasn't baffled by the existence of legitimacy for republics, I was baffled by the first proposed source, as it seemed to be a copy of divine ordinance for monarchs.

I do have a question though- you say it was the same for the Punics? So did they have a concept of tyranny too? Where did they get it from?

Sorry. I didn't explain very well. :eek::eek::eek:
 

tenthring

Banned
Political power reflects military and economic power. Most of the differences between governmental systems owe to the relative value or the citizens in the prevailing military environment. Heavy cavalry society = aristocratic. Heavy infantry = republic. Oarsmen for navy = democracy. With many combinations. When gunpowder was invented massed musket men peasants became valuable, and so we began our move towards modern democracy.

Priests get 10% because they are good at motivating people and keeping social order. People need stories to justify doing what they already have to do anyway given the structure of power. The stories let everyone save face. I'm not an oppressed peasent bumpkin, I'm playing my role in God's master plan. However thin the rationalization, it appeals to people and helps society him along.
 
Political power reflects military and economic power. Most of the differences between governmental systems owe to the relative value or the citizens in the prevailing military environment. Heavy cavalry society = aristocratic. Heavy infantry = republic. Oarsmen for navy = democracy. With many combinations. When gunpowder was invented massed musket men peasants became valuable, and so we began our move towards modern democracy.

Priests get 10% because they are good at motivating people and keeping social order. People need stories to justify doing what they already have to do anyway given the structure of power. The stories let everyone save face. I'm not an oppressed peasent bumpkin, I'm playing my role in God's master plan. However thin the rationalization, it appeals to people and helps society him along.

Also fair, but how does that explain large empires that did not make heavy use of cavalry? The Romans, for instance, or ... I'm thinking the Carolingians- also the Inka?
 
Thank you for explaining it so well. I'd also like to make clear that I wasn't baffled by the existence of legitimacy for republics, I was baffled by the first proposed source, as it seemed to be a copy of divine ordinance for monarchs.

I do have a question though- you say it was the same for the Punics? So did they have a concept of tyranny too? Where did they get it from?
Thanks.
I was not being clear, sorry. I meant that the Punics had republican constitutions with a complicated set of institutions which kept each other in check. I did not wish to express that the Punics had an abhorrence of tyranny. I have no idea where Punic republicanism came from; all the sources we have are either Greek or Roman, and they tend to explain things in their own local terminology, and anyway they´re all rather late for a decision whether e.g. Carthage`s constitution had absorbed Greek influences or whether this is a "homegrown" Phoenician tradition. So, sorry, no idea...
 
I don't think many people here understand the full scope of the question. Legitimacy was an intensely important issue in Medieval Europe (and I'm assuming this is a great bulk of the OP's question.)

William of Normandy did not invade the Kingdom of England because he felt like it. William of Normandy invaded the Kingdom of England when he got Papal blessing to do so. Holy Roman Emperors contorted themselves to be crowned by the Pope.

In medieval Europe, a ruler with no Legitimacy was one with little authority, because, as an illegitimate ruler, it was duty of his subjects to rebel against him, and seat the rightful claiment.

As an example, the English conquest of Ireland only really began after the Pope had given his blessing for it. Even if it was a forgery, it shows that England desired it's invasion to be legitimate.

Kings did not crown themselves, they were crowned by the Catholic Church. Thus, Kingdoms derived their legitimacy from the God, via the Catholic Church.

It's not enough to say that Premodern Republics generated their Legitimacy via popular consent (that's a Liberal Idea, that only started gathering steam in the 1700s or so.) Legitimacy is not merely an internal only thing, it extends to foreign relations. A State must have legitimacy, else it is easy prey for Neighbouring states.

The suggestion of one poster to examine the foundational myths is an excellent one. I suspect that, for the European Ones espicially, you will find many of them link back to the Romans in some fashion. Medieval Europe had a sordid love affair with the Roman Empire, conviced that nothing would ever match it's might.

Venice, for example, could derive it's legitimacy via the ERE, which granted it de facto independence in 803.

I suggest also examing the confirmation procedures of the Heads of the Republics. For example, the Doge of Venice was first shown to the people with the words "This is your Doge, if it pleases you."

This show how both types of legitimacy: Internal and External, are derived, at least for Venice.

Looking at yearly celebrations in the Republics may well be of use.

In most cases, however, my suspicision is that for most Medieval European Republics, their legitimacy will likely be Roman derived, in one way or other.

Also, Paging Irene , our resident Venice Expert.
 
diestormlie,
from among the OP`s example, I must confess I kind of focused a lot on those from Classical Antiquity.

As for the Middle Ages, you touched upon some factors for its unique characteristics. But let us not forget that, once the dust of the chaos began to settle, democratic communes began to sprout and claim and assert their autonomous rights against feudal lords and monarchs, from France over Northern Spain and Italy to Switzerland, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands (to use present-day designations). While the local lord may have pointed to the king for his legitimacy, and the king may have pointed to the church or to Constantinople or wherever else for legitimacy, the village assemblies, town councils, mayors etc. never really had their roles thrown into doubt - except, of course, from above, by the rulers who didn`t want to grant them autonomy. That wasn`t a matter of legal hermeneutics, that was a long (and at times very bloody) class war between the class of artisans/crafters and yeomen farmers on the one hand side, and the feudal lords on the other. The former asserted democratic rights, not just from the 1700s onwards but all through the Middle Ages, at least somewhere, while the latter insisted on claims of a different sort.
 
It's not enough to say that Premodern Republics generated their Legitimacy via popular consent (that's a Liberal Idea, that only started gathering steam in the 1700s or so.)

This is wrong, Legitimacy was always determined by popular consent. As you yourself wrote:

In medieval Europe, a ruler with no Legitimacy was one with little authority, because, as an illegitimate ruler, it was duty of his subjects to rebel against him, and seat the rightful claiment.

A ruler is only illegitimate if his subjects actually rebel i.e. he has lost their consent. Although during medieval times the nobility tried to make it all about their divine right, in the end their power still depended on popular consent, if that was lost their rule collapsed.

For example the nobles of the HRE (especially the Hapsburgians) always viewed the swiss confederacy as illegitimate because it was founded on a rebellion against their divine right. However, as the people didn't accept their claim they never were able to rule the area. When the pope excommunicated the people of schwyz they simply responded by pillaging the nearest monastery.

When Frederick Barbarossa tried to subjugate the city of the Lombardy, he had the right to do so as the honor imperii made him the legitimate successor of the roman emperor. Yet the cities didn't consent to his rule and managed to resist his armies.

King Charles was convinced that he had the divine right to rule but as he did not have the consent of the gentry he ended up beheaded.

Conversely when at the same time king Frederick of Denmark established an absolute monarchy he got the consent of the mercantile class and the clergy (which wanted to weaken the nobility) and could enact his plans.

Thus the rule of the kings was always based on popular consent even if they didn't want to believe it.
 
Top