Going_North_cal Posted August 31, 2022 Posted August 31, 2022 The Alethi government is an Oligarchy. Thanks for coming to my TedTalk.
That1Cellist he/him Posted August 31, 2022 Posted August 31, 2022 Yeah. Sure, I'll go with that. Thank you for coming to my TedSupport.
Frustration Posted September 1, 2022 Posted September 1, 2022 10 hours ago, CalanoCorvus said: The Alethi government is an Oligarchy. Thanks for coming to my TedTalk. Um, no it's very much a monarchy. Just because the king is weak doesn't mean he isn't king.
bmcclure7 Posted September 1, 2022 Posted September 1, 2022 2 hours ago, Frustration said: Um, no it's very much a monarchy. Just because the king is weak doesn't mean he isn't king. The king's ascension happened only recently so up to that point it had been an Oligarchy. 2
LuckyJim Posted September 1, 2022 Posted September 1, 2022 1 hour ago, bmcclure7 said: The king's ascension happened only recently so up to that point it had been an Oligarchy. At that point it was a bunch of warlords competing with each other. They didn't have an actual central government until Gavilar went on his unification war.
Going_North_cal Posted September 1, 2022 Author Posted September 1, 2022 ok ok hear me out tho. regardless of if it has a king (even if he is a weak loser-), it's a bunch of high ranking citizens who guard the wealth of the nation. oligarchy!
BinarySecond Posted September 1, 2022 Posted September 1, 2022 Prior to the unification by the Kholin's it was definitely just fiefdom's without a single ruler. Is Dalinar just a benevolent Dictator at this point? 2
StanLemon Posted September 1, 2022 Posted September 1, 2022 3 hours ago, BinarySecond said: Is Dalinar just a benevolent Dictator at this point? I think that argument could have been made until RoW. Now I think Jasnah is truly taking the reigns and making it a proper monarchy which she probably plans on converting to a democracy of some kind 1
bmcclure7 Posted September 1, 2022 Posted September 1, 2022 14 hours ago, LuckyJim said: At that point it was a bunch of warlords competing with each other. They didn't have an actual central government until Gavilar went on his unification war. So a dysfunctional Oligarchy
offer Posted September 1, 2022 Posted September 1, 2022 5 hours ago, CalanoCorvus said: ok ok hear me out tho. regardless of if it has a king (even if he is a weak loser-), it's a bunch of high ranking citizens who guard the wealth of the nation. oligarchy! They don`t guard the "wealth of the nation". Each one (or each family) has its own wealth. It is kind of a feudal system where the king gets taxes and military support from the highprinces who get taxes from lower ranking nobles who themself get taxes and soldiers from nower ranking nobles. It is not oligarchy because your social ranking is generally determined by birth and not by wealth (there are special cases when rich people can have more power than they suppose to but this is extreme cases). 1
Lego Mistborn he/him Posted September 2, 2022 Posted September 2, 2022 (edited) On 9/1/2022 at 9:24 AM, CalanoCorvus said: ok ok hear me out tho. regardless of if it has a king (even if he is a weak loser-), it's a bunch of high ranking citizens who guard the wealth of the nation. oligarchy! Ultimately, tis a monarchy/feudalist society. Social standing for those not deemed royalty(king, highprinces) is based on economic stature, but the rulers are not selected based on wealth. Edit: I just realized we've been defining oligarchy wrong. Oligarchy has nothing to do with wealth, only that a small group collectively make laws together. Still a monarchy though. Edited September 2, 2022 by Ta'veren Kaladin
SpinningSky he/him Posted September 2, 2022 Posted September 2, 2022 I don't really see an argument for it to be an Oligarchy, Regardless of how the rulers are chosen, there is no defined law by which the "oligarrchy" rules, no counsel voting or anything of the sort, it's just a balance of powers and politics mixed with tradition 16 hours ago, offer said: They don`t guard the "wealth of the nation". Each one (or each family) has its own wealth. It is kind of a feudal system where the king gets taxes and military support from the highprinces who get taxes from lower ranking nobles who themself get taxes and soldiers from nower ranking nobles. I agree, it's feudal system, this is reinforced by the squabbles over land the highprinces have, typical of medieval feudal system But I'm no historian soooo this is just a mildly informed opinion I guess
cometaryorbit Posted September 3, 2022 Posted September 3, 2022 Depends. I think a de facto oligarchy (though it's a de jure monarchy) is a decent description of the kingdom under Elhokar, since he was a weak king and the highprinces basically ran things. Jasnah is changing this, as we see in RoW. Though while it's technically oligarchic by definition, if the few rulers are hereditary it's usually called an aristocracy rather than oligarchy. On 9/1/2022 at 1:31 PM, StanLemon said: I think that argument could have been made until RoW. Now I think Jasnah is truly taking the reigns and making it a proper monarchy which she probably plans on converting to a democracy of some kind I think Jasnah's goal is something like a constitutional monarchy, but not as democratic as say modern W European constitutional monarchies. Maybe more like 19th century Britain? I don't think democracy is really a concept on Roshar.
Frustration Posted September 5, 2022 Posted September 5, 2022 On 8/31/2022 at 8:41 PM, bmcclure7 said: The king's ascension happened only recently so up to that point it had been an Oligarchy. Actually they were ten smaller monarchies as they were different nations. 1
bmcclure7 Posted September 5, 2022 Posted September 5, 2022 42 minutes ago, Frustration said: Actually they were ten smaller monarchies as they were different nations. It was still called alithcar before so it must have had some level of unity even if it was just ch cultural.
Hessi's Ward she/her Posted September 6, 2022 Posted September 6, 2022 While I think the Alethi highprinces form an oligarchy, Alethkar is not a formal oligarchy and the oligarchy is not plutocratic. Though, under this definition almost every nation is an oligarchy. I see pre-unification Alethkar as something similar to the warring states of Spring and Autumn period of Ancient China. Basically, the princedoms are sovereign feudalistic states headed by the highprince and loosely bound by the concept of Alethi nationhood. I don't think this counts as an oligarchy because it's not a unified group with an agenda ruling a nationstate of Alethkar but rivals trying to devour each other to form Alethkar the state with occasional alliances. Post-unification, Alethkar was definitely a monarchy during Gavilar's reign because he doesn't seem to be keen on sharing power but the highprinces gained more power during Elhokar's reign for obvious poor leadership reasons. However, I don't think the highprinces could as a collective push Elhokar to, for example, ratify a law if there is even a political collective of all the highprinces. He may be weak, easily swayed, and the true power of the throne isn't in him but he's not the highprinces' puppet king. In terms of a true, formal oligarchy, I think Thaylenah fits the bill better. The merchant councils and high-ranking naval officers form a group based on wealth and military rank with the power to elect monarchs. Moreover, because the Thaylen monarch is the representative of the Thaylen guilds, it can be assumed that they're encouraged and expected to follow their agenda. TL:DR: Alethkar not a true oligarchy, Thaylenah can be read as one 1
Frustration Posted September 7, 2022 Posted September 7, 2022 On 9/5/2022 at 2:41 PM, bmcclure7 said: It was still called alithcar before so it must have had some level of unity even if it was just ch cultural. Cultural unity has no bearing on government
bmcclure7 Posted September 7, 2022 Posted September 7, 2022 1 hour ago, Frustration said: Cultural unity has no bearing on government No but you can't call each high princdom s Seprate nation either.
offer Posted September 7, 2022 Posted September 7, 2022 20 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said: No but you can't call each high princdom s Seprate nation either. You can. They were different nations with different rulers and different armies who constantly fought eachother. In the past they were part of the same nation but they were`nt more unifid than the separate nations after the end of the roman empire.
bmcclure7 Posted September 7, 2022 Posted September 7, 2022 1 hour ago, offer said: You can. They were different nations with different rulers and different armies who constantly fought eachother. In the past they were part of the same nation but they were`nt more unifid than the separate nations after the end of the roman empire. By that logic the German States were separate nations.
cometaryorbit Posted September 7, 2022 Posted September 7, 2022 (edited) "Nation" or nation-state - in the sense we in the modern English-speaking world generally use it - is basically a concept originating out of 17th century Europe ("Westphalian sovereignty") and spread worldwide in more recent times. It doesn't necessarily apply on Roshar just as it didn't on pre modern Earth. When we translate say Latin or Greek words as 'nation', it's not really the same concept. More like a defined cultural & often linguistic people group, distinct from others - but not implying sovereignty (there were many 'nations' within the Roman Empire). Historically, sovereignty/rulership over people, sovereignty/rulership over territory, and the cultural concept of a nation didn't necessarily coincide, and ambiguous sovereignty was much more accepted. (It exists today, of course, but now it's generally seen as "not the proper state of things" - a territory is either an independent nation, part of another nation, or 'disputed'.) In pre 17th century Europe you had things like the Holy Roman Empire (nominally under one ruler but really many independent nations), the several layered levels of kingship in pre British conquest Ireland, the sort of independent status of the medieval European Church within otherwise sovereign kingdoms and its holding a sort of overarching authority which was (in later medieval European thought) distinguished from the kind of authority kings had. Native American leadership structures often worked in completely different ways. The Imperial model of pre 20th century China and Japan looks superficially like the nation state model but isn't quite the same. And so on, every part of the world had its own distinct system or systems. Edited September 7, 2022 by cometaryorbit
Lego Mistborn he/him Posted September 7, 2022 Posted September 7, 2022 5 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said: By that logic the German States were separate nations. They were separate nations... I don't really understand your argument here.
cometaryorbit Posted September 7, 2022 Posted September 7, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Ta'veren Kaladin said: They were separate nations... I don't really understand your argument here. I think this really is a conflating of two meanings of 'nation'. In the way it's used when talking about many societies that didn't use the Westphalian sovereignty concept (eg the term 'First Nations') Germany (or, really, 'the German people') was (were) 'a nation' (a distinct people-group defined by shared language & culture). And that would be true whether it was broken into 20 separate states, unified as one, or existed under a larger empire. In the Westphalian sovereignty sense, each state was a separate nation (nation-state). Post 20th century we tend to assume the two are the same, and where they aren't that's an anomaly/problem. But that's a pretty modern view & wouldn't exist on Roshar. (It clearly doesn't, given the way Alethkar pre unification is discussed, and the whole thing with Azir kind of but not really having other kingdoms under it). Edited September 7, 2022 by cometaryorbit 1
Frustration Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 6 hours ago, bmcclure7 said: No but you can't call each high princdom s Seprate nation either. Yes you can. The only thing they shared was culture and religion. They were no more the same country than Athens and Sparta were. 4 hours ago, bmcclure7 said: By that logic the German States were separate nations. That depends on the time period.
bmcclure7 Posted September 8, 2022 Posted September 8, 2022 1 hour ago, Frustration said: Yes you can. The only thing they shared was culture and religion. They were no more the same country than Athens and Sparta were. That depends on the time period. Fair point though Athens and Sparta were in separate leagues. So really both were subparts/center of larger Communities.
Recommended Posts