High Fantasy Peasant Republic

[Rosemary Tea]

I think that Mad Swede has some interesting notions about Sweden, not wrong per necessity in all points, but interesting from the perspective of another Swede, in this case myself. I agree with a bit and disagree with more, as a I think I recognize Mad Swede's rhetoric to be from the political right to which I have little sympathy myself.

And to piggyback on that, since this thread is about a fictional peasant republic, for a story in which a citizen of the republic is abroad, this very discussion could be some inspiration. Perhaps the MC explains his country's politics one way, when asked, and then along comes another native who has a different take on them.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Sounds about as meaningful as the Pledge of Allegiance. Do schoolchildren saying, "One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all" day after day really create liberty and justice for all throughout the USA?

That promotes the ideal, but in and of itself doesn't really do anything to make it reality.

In a way it does help to make it a reality.

Any form of government only exists because the people believe in it. A monarch can only stay in power because people believe he has a god-given right to rule*. A republic can only exist because people believe they all get a vote and are equal. If that falls down then you get Caesar crossing the Rubicon. As such, instilling the values of your republic in children helps maintain it and makes it a reality.

*Monarchy as in the fuedal version where the monarch actually rules, not modern monarchies where the king is a puppet who cuts ribbons.

 

[Mad Swede]

Without getting into politics (and Gurkhal is wrong regarding my political sympathies) what this illustrates is what can happen between groups of people who share different ideals and/or norms. There gets to be a point where the two groups can't even have a simple discussion without feelings getting heated and the discussion degenerating into something else. Which is of course one of the classic roots of conflict. There is no reason why such a conflict could not arise from the founding of a peasants republic, whether that be within the new republic or between it and a neighbouring country.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

Without getting into politics (and Gurkhal is wrong regarding my political sympathies) what this illustrates is what can happen between groups of people who share different ideals and/or norms. There gets to be a point where the two groups can't even have a simple discussion without feelings getting heated and the discussion degenerating into something else. Which is of course one of the classic roots of conflict. There is no reason why such a conflict could not arise from the founding of a peasants republic, whether that be within the new republic or between it and a neighbouring country.

Of course, but is it all out war, or is it just people getting into heated discussions?

Heated discussions don't destroy a country. War can and does.

 

[skip.knox]

An annual pledge, the swearing of an oath, really does serve a purpose. In the late medieval Italian city-states I know a bit about, the assembliage served at least two functions. One, it was a public reiteration of citizenship. Who were citizens and who were merely resident aliens? All you had to do was observe the piazza on oath day. Even if not every person showed--individualism being not nearly so important as individualists believe--the community knew who the families were. In an age with no mass communication, this was as effective a method as any for a community to define itself. Late medieval societies were very big on using public displays in this way.

Another function was to repeat for all to hear, including those who were new to citizenship, the terms of citizenship. Principles might be stated or there might be actual listing of laws. Practice varied, and our sources are spotty. In a similar way, guildsmen had to show up once a year to hear the guild regulations recited. If you were a journeyman hoping to become a master in that town, it was in your interest to show up, too.

It's very true that a mere recitation of a loyalty oath, or of regulations, doesn't in and of itself bring about good or obedient citizens. But that's the thing. It was never in and of itself, but was part of a whole fabric of expectations and behaviors and institutions by which communities define themselves.

 

[skip.knox]

>Heated discussions don't destroy a country. War can and does.
War also transforms countries. It has saved countries. It has even created countries. Always at a cost, of course. But as a writer, I don't want to overlook all implications and ramifications.

 

[Mad Swede]

Of course, but is it all out war, or is it just people getting into heated discussions?

Heated discussions don't destroy a country. War can and does.

No, but in my experience from UN peacekeeping missions heated discussions often descend into very personal conflicts between leaders and groups and from there it all too often results in people reaching for weapons. Then you have a civil war, and most countries never recover from that.