• Jake Farm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 days ago

    More like the monarch fought for it then gave it to their friends.

      • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Depends on the ruler actually.

        Japan’s nobility kinda just happened to be the most successful rice farmers and rolled that into becoming their community leaders.

        England’s were mostly William the Conqueror’s friends.

        Rome’s claimed descent from deities, and might have kinda been telling the truth if you follow the theory that polytheism starts as ancestor worship.

        Germanic tribes had military leaders in tandem with religious/legal leaders.

        Pre-bronze age societies were ruled by priest kings who mostly held power by controlling the distribution of grain from temples.

        A lot of Eastern Europe’s leaders were Vikings that happened to find really good places to start settlements.

        In societies like the Haudenosaunee “nobility” was more just that you were the head of your extended family or the long house you called home.

        The Roman Empire was inaugurated by Augustus “just happening” to hold several very powerful titles of office simultaneously, and never giving any of them up and passing them all on to his chosen successor. It’s actually pretty funny just how bureaucratic his takeover was considering how many stoic statues of him in military attire there are. Guy became the king of the Mediterranean through paperworking his way into it.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          Rome’s claimed descent from deities, and might have kinda been telling the truth if you follow the theory that polytheism starts as ancestor worship.

          Claiming descent from deities was common in Rome. The justification for the inheritance of autocracy was, theoretically, the grant of power by the Senate in the name of the people of Rome (in practice, the support of the elite or the military), and the dual fact that actual hereditary inheritance was fairly rare and that ruling families changed as often as fashion means that descent was not the primary justification.

          The Roman Empire was inaugurated by Augustus “just happening” to hold several very powerful titles of office simultaneously, and never giving any of them up and passing them all on to his chosen successor. It’s actually pretty funny just how bureaucratic his takeover was considering how many stoic statues of him in military attire there are. Guy became the king of the Mediterranean through paperworking his way into it.

          Paperwork wins empires, it would seem. And propaganda. Lots of propaganda work from Augustus.

          • Rolando@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Paperwork wins empires,

            Ooh! I just thought of something:

            • Paperwork enables logistics
            • Logistics wins battles
            • Battles win empires
            • Therefore, paperwork wins empires. QED.
      • Jake Farm
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Peasant uprisings have happened throughout history. Some succeeded but then the whole country collapsed, others were put down violently. Then you have the french cycle of rebellion, democracy, external invasion, monarchy reinstated. They did that like four times before it stuck.

    • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I read Sarum (historical fiction that takes some liberties) recently and the way land and passive income and title are inextricably linked is pretty enlightening