Why did repubilc almost died out in Medevil Era and Late-Classical Era

Did really no want res-pubilla or Try Merge with State with Pubic affair.

Does have do with Christianity.

Yes and no. After all, there were republics all over northern India that died out a couple centuries before most of the Western ones. Obviously Chrisitanity had very little to do with that!

Sorry, if I can I'll come and give a more detailed answer later. I have to get ready for work.
 
Yes and no. After all, there were republics all over northern India that died out a couple centuries before most of the Western ones. Obviously Chrisitanity had very little to do with that!

Sorry, if I can I'll come and give a more detailed answer later. I have to get ready for work.

(I'm the OP is my right to nerco my theard right)

It been long time could I have that answer
 
Last edited:
Did really no want res-pubilla or Try Merge with State with Pubic affair.

Does have do with Christianity.

Well their had been various oligarchy City States like Venice, Pisa, Genoa, the Hanseatic League states like Hamburg, Luebeck, Bremen etc., various attempts of peasant republics (Republic of Dithmarschen 1555-1559), the medival attempt of a res publicae revival in Rome itself !!! (seldom covered in this forum). In the HRE there had been several bloody struggles between townsfolk and their clerical overlords (like Cologne in 14th century).
 
Well their had been various oligarchy City States like Venice, Pisa, Genoa, the Hanseatic League states like Hamburg, Luebeck, Bremen etc., various attempts of peasant republics (Republic of Dithmarschen 1555-1559), the medival attempt of a res publicae revival in Rome itself !!! (seldom covered in this forum). In the HRE there had been several bloody struggles between townsfolk and their clerical overlords (like Cologne in 14th century).


Yes, That why I said almost died out.

As in not Completely.

I would look see Commune of Roma TL but I have seen is discussion, No real TL.
 
(I'm the OP is my right to nerco my theard right)

It been long time could I have that answer

Hello, I'd forgotten completely.

I found out about the Indian Republics reading Graeber's Debt, but there are sources online that give more information.

As to your original question, I think Christianity played a small role, and economics and power much larger ones. Republics as republics were effective on geographically limited scales due to the technology of the time - small regions or cities, basically. When political units expanded beyond their immediate environs, you either had a small republic dominating its neighbors in a non-republican way (Rome, Athens, etc.) or the prompt replacement of the republic with monarchy or dictatorship (e.g. League of Corinth or Rome) in all but name. So a successful republic tended to stop being a republic.

And there were relatively few successful ones though, even in the medium term. Basically, it was easier to interfere in the internal politics of a neighboring polity (and eventually annex it) if it had a republican form of government - one of the works quoted in my first link is - if I'm identifying it right - actually from something written by a warlord (ahem, "king") who was describing the proper way to subvert and weaken a republic. It was all very Machiavellian.

Christianity may well have played a role in preventing the formation of republics through its system of Three Estates and its rejection of mercantile classes and their means of income. But it came into power long after the end of constitutional republicanism in the Roman world.
 
The Roman Republic could endure, but for it to survive it would probably have to be much less successful.

If you want to make a new republic out of Rome's empire, though, that's a different matter entirely. I think it could probably be done, if only on the Mediterranean, by means of a different co-option of Christianity. The early Christian church operated as a sort of parallel shadow government to late Rome; perhaps something different might have been developed out of that. It was federal - elected its local leadership from the grassroots, had them elect regional leaders, and those leaders choose the heads of the church. It raised money by donations that came to have expected minimums depending on the faithful's available wealth....

There's potential there.
 
Did really no want res-pubilla or Try Merge with State with Pubic affair.

Does have do with Christianity.

I agree with Admiral Matt`s view on Christianity`s potential. I´m currently trying to develop this in Res Novae Romanae.

As for why there were fewer republics in the first millennium CE, as compared to the millennium before (the Carthaginians, various Greeks, Rome, various Indians) and after (almost everywhere got republican in the 2nd millennium CE), I think there are several possible explanations:

1.) The materialist-structuralist explanation:
In the first centuries of the last millennium BCE, small polities emerged from after the Bronze Age collapse (in the Med) resp. the Indo-Aryan conquests (in Northern India). As complexity increased within them, tribal kings were replaced by republican systems in many places. But the classical republics were highly unequal, hierarchical societies, only a small minority were citizens, so the line between republicanism and oligarchy was blurred. As others have pointed out before, when such polities expanded not in the form of new independent colonies but in the form of more complex federations or empires, there was not much (except perhaps the newly conquered elites) that pushed them towards including the newly controlled territories into their citizenry. On the contrary, the pattern of domination of a ruling group over another was replicated, so that more and more people became mere subjects, and possibly even slaves.

The first centuries of the first millennium CE saw a boom of very large empires (Rome in the Med, the Maurya, Satavahana and Gupta in India), which were founded and/or could only be ruled by conquering monarchs or pseudo-monarchs. Those who had been the citizenry of the victorious classical republics had not really lost social status, though: many of them either became bearers of this or that relevant function throughout the empire, while others were maintained on government handouts.

When these empires with their thin upper classes collapsed because outsiders wanted a slice of the cake, too, complexity was reduced again for quite a while. Early medieval empires emerged from the steppe or the desert and, although creating some complexity in some cases, rarely restored the levels of social development of the first millennia. As humankind recovered throughout the middle ages, republican forms of government resurged once again, whether on the local level, or as larger maritime republics. And, once again, a handful of warlords/kings concentrated so much power that they created and required centralised states.

The historically truly new development is the dominance of republics, and democratic ones, too, from the 18th century onwards. In the materialist explanation, this had something to do with the emerge first of the bourgeoisie, then of the industrial proletariat - and of course with the greatly improved means of communication and transportation, with the way distances have shrunk over the past centuries.

2.) The cultural-idealist explanation:
Others, who think that ideas and cultural convictions are not so much shaped by a society´s economic "hardware", could hint at the precedent set by conquering monarchs like Cyrus, Alexander, Octavian, Traian, Chandragupta Maurya and Samudragupta, who were emulated by many ambitious men afterwards. They could point to Christianity`s doctrinal enshrinement of submission to worldly political authorities, and to the rigidisation of the varna system in Hindu culture.
 
I agree with Admiral Matt`s view on Christianity`s potential. I´m currently trying to develop this in Res Novae Romanae.

2.) The cultural-idealist explanation:
Others, who think that ideas and cultural convictions are not so much shaped by a society´s economic "hardware", could hint at the precedent set by conquering monarchs like Cyrus, Alexander, Octavian, Traian, Chandragupta Maurya and Samudragupta, who were emulated by many ambitious men afterwards. They could point to Christianity`s doctrinal enshrinement of submission to worldly political authorities, and to the rigidisation of the varna system in Hindu culture.

Mostly agree with this one but I can see the other side some has good point.

But Broken clock can right at one hour right
 
A large part of it is how the idea of republics worked out for most pre-modern states. It was republican for certain classes of people, merchants, guild masters, nobility,etc. and not every one. Even the egalitarian of republics just encompassed the original city state which would then rule other cities as any other power went.
 
I'd point the finger at the massive decline in urban culture.
Its no surprise that republics tended to be city-states. That's where the middle classes can thrive and republican ideas really take root.

Also to consider was the nature of the Germans. Though they did have strong pseudo-democratic beliefs they also placed a lot of faith in family and kinship ties. So you have the related Germanic ruling class and the local minority who have been reduced to farmers....feudalism looks certain.
 
Top