Would Democracy Exist if the Persians had Won?

[Fudbucker]

My class and I are studying the ancient Greeks. If the Persians had won, I'm of the opinion democracy would have sprung up somewhere else, eventually, but maybe not.

Thoughts?

 

[theprestige]

My class and I are studying the ancient Greeks. If the Persians had won, I'm of the opinion democracy would have sprung up somewhere else, eventually, but maybe not.

If the Persians had won what, exactly?

Anyway, it's my understanding that the Persian empire was too far-flung to bother with replacing local institutions wholesale. Instead, local polities ruled themselves according to their own customs, swore nominal fealty to the distant emperor, and made remittances via a satrap who held regional governorship in the emperor's name.

So my guess is that Greek democracy would have remained active in any case, the Persian empire would have collapsed from its systemic flaws on about the same schedule anyway, and the Roman Republic would have arisen at about the same time and in about the same form as actually happened. From there, history would have unfolded in the same pattern with which we are already familiar.

I suppose the argument could be made that the same weaknesses that led to the eventual collapse of the Persian empire prevented them from triumphing over the Greeks. In that case, in order for the Persians to have 'won', they would have needed a different kind of empire, with different strengths and weaknesses, leading to an entirely speculative alternate history. In that scenario, who knows what would have happened to Greece, or Rome, or Europe, or Asia? The sky's the limit; make up whatever you want at that point.

 

[Fudbucker]

If the Persians had won what, exactly?

Anyway, it's my understanding that the Persian empire was too far-flung to bother with replacing local institutions wholesale. Instead, local polities ruled themselves according to their own customs, swore nominal fealty to the distant emperor, and made remittances via a satrap who held regional governorship in the emperor's name.

So my guess is that Greek democracy would have remained active in any case, the Persian empire would have collapsed from its systemic flaws on about the same schedule anyway, and the Roman Republic would have arisen at about the same time and in about the same form as actually happened. From there, history would have unfolded in the same pattern with which we are already familiar.

I suppose the argument could be made that the same weaknesses that led to the eventual collapse of the Persian empire prevented them from triumphing over the Greeks. In that case, in order for the Persians to have 'won', they would have needed a different kind of empire, with different strengths and weaknesses, leading to an entirely speculative alternate history. In that scenario, who knows what would have happened to Greece, or Rome, or Europe, or Asia? The sky's the limit; make up whatever you want at that point.

If the Persians had won the battle of Plateau and/or Salamis. I don't think there would have been much left of Greece. Xerxes was out for revenge because his father was defeated by the Greeks. An army of 180,000 back then meant business.

Interesting analysis about Rome. But perhaps with a victory over the Greeks, the Persian empire would have had more life breathed into it, and they would have looked northward...

 

[ddt]

Anyway, it's my understanding that the Persian empire was too far-flung to bother with replacing local institutions wholesale. Instead, local polities ruled themselves according to their own customs, swore nominal fealty to the distant emperor, and made remittances via a satrap who held regional governorship in the emperor's name.

So my guess is that Greek democracy would have remained active in any case, the Persian empire would have collapsed from its systemic flaws on about the same schedule anyway, and the Roman Republic would have arisen at about the same time and in about the same form as actually happened. From there, history would have unfolded in the same pattern with which we are already familiar.

Let's not forget one thing: at the time of the Persian wars, there was only one Greek democracy, viz. Athens. All the other city states were either oligarchies or monarchies - Athens only exported democracy to here allies/vassals after the Persian wars. Also, the Athenian golden age only started after those wars. With a Persian victory and hold over Greece, chances are good we'd never heard much about Athens and its democracy.

If the Persians had won the battle of Plateau Plataeae and/or Salamis. I don't think there would have been much left of Greece. Xerxes was out for revenge because his father was defeated by the Greeks. An army of 180,000 back then meant business.

Pedantic correction. And 180,000 seems a bit large, more like 100,000, IIRC.

Interesting analysis about Rome. But perhaps with a victory over the Greeks, the Persian empire would have had more life breathed into it, and they would have looked northward...

Hmm, Rome is West of Greece, not North. And Rome began to get noticed around the First Punic War, which was nearly a century after Alexander conquered the Persian Empire. And an invasion by the Persian Empire into Italy seems very unlikely.

And to answer your question: I think it would have mattered very little for our present-day notion of democracy. That has sprung from an organic development where more and more people demanded a say in government, and because the king wanted to tax them, for his war, for his courts and what-not, he had to. That started with the nobility (e.g., Magna Carta), then the cities that sprang up during the Middle Ages, or the landed gentry (the Commons since Edward I), and eventually expanded to every free citizen (the American Revolution). Moreover, as the system expanded, it developed into a representative democracy with elections of those representatives, whereas Athens had a direct democracy: everybody was entitled to attend the Ecclesia.

And let's not pretend that democracy has been invented only in Athens and the nowadays western world. The constitution of the Roman Republic also had democratic aspects.

 

[rjh01]

Democracy is what you get when you get a large % of the population who has plenty of money left over after buying the absolute essentials of life, plus good communications and an ability to think for yourself. If the ancient Greeks had never had democracy it would have been invented later.

 

[MikeG]

Democracy is what you get when you get a large % of the population who has plenty of money left over after buying the absolute essentials of life, plus good communications and an ability to think for yourself. If the ancient Greeks had never had democracy it would have been invented later.

So they don't have any democracy in Africa, South America, India and so on?

 

[Craig B]

So they don't have any democracy in Africa, South America, India and so on?

You are saying that nowhere in these huge areas is there

a large % of the population who has plenty of money left over after buying the absolute essentials of life, plus good communications and an ability to think for yourself?

ETA I would say that these things are necessary, but not sufficient requirements for the development of democracy.

 

[ddt]

You are saying that nowhere in these huge areas is there

ETA I would say that these things are necessary, but not sufficient requirements for the development of democracy.

In huge parts of Africa and India, they're not available AFAIK.

I would state it differently though than Mike. A modern, Western, democracy is not just going to the polls every four year. or so You can do that in Putin's Russia too, or in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Democracy exists by virtue of a free and critical press, and other possibilities that citizens can inform themselves, and by virtue of what is called "civil society", the whole constellation of organizations that lobby for particular interests: trade uinons, NGOs, etc. And yes, a certain economic surplus so that citizens can finance that is a necessary requirement.

 

[Craig B]

In huge parts of Africa and India, they're not available AFAIK.

I would state it differently though than Mike. A modern, Western, democracy is not just going to the polls every four year. or so You can do that in Putin's Russia too, or in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Democracy exists by virtue of a free and critical press, and other possibilities that citizens can inform themselves, and by virtue of what is called "civil society", the whole constellation of organizations that lobby for particular interests: trade uinons, NGOs, etc. And yes, a certain economic surplus so that citizens can finance that is a necessary requirement.

Yes, civil society is the crucial factor, given the pre-existence of even quite modest levels of material surplus.

One of the features of Soviet society that made its political reform impossible, was not that people were starving (for they were not) but that civil society had been demolished by Stalin, and had not been permitted to repair or restore itself by the successor regimes.

 

[Senex]

If Persia wins our American forefathers would have made us celebrate Independence Day on July 7th instead of the 4th so they could have had a few more days to work out the details.

 

[nota]

carthage ?

while not a true Democracy
it was ruled by a group [like rome] of upper class citizens

 

[Craig B]

carthage ?

while not a true Democracy
it was ruled by a group [like rome] of upper class citizens

Quite similar. They even had two chief magistrates, like the two Consuls.

The term is mostly widely known from the suffetes of Carthage, a former Phoenician colony. Following the overthrow of its monarchy in the 5th century BC, Carthage was ruled by a number of aristocratic councils presided over by two suffetes, who served in similar capacity to Roman consuls.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shophet

 

[ddt]

carthage ?

while not a true Democracy
it was ruled by a group [like rome] of upper class citizens

Rome's two consuls were the executive, to put it in today's parlance. There was also the Senate and various other councils in which the whole populace was represented (slaves excepted of course).

Rule by a group of upper class citizens does not make a democracy. That's an oligarchy. But according to wiki there were democratic elements:

Although the city's administration was firmly controlled by oligarchs,[138] democratic elements were to be found as well: Carthage had elected legislators, trade unions and town meetings in the form of a Popular Assembly. Aristotle reported in his Politics that unless the Suffets and the Council reached a unanimous decision, the Carthaginian popular assembly had the decisive vote — unlike the situation in Greek states with similar constitutions such as Sparta and Crete. Polybius, in his History book 6, also stated that at the time of the Punic Wars, the Carthaginian public held more sway over the government than the people of Rome held over theirs (a development he regarded as evidence of decline).

 

[angrysoba]

Democracy is what you get when you get a large % of the population who has plenty of money left over after buying the absolute essentials of life, plus good communications and an ability to think for yourself. If the ancient Greeks had never had democracy it would have been invented later.

I don't know if that can be assumed. It doesn't exist in China or even in Hong Kong when it could have done.

 

[Craig B]

Rome's two consuls were the executive, to put it in today's parlance. There was also the Senate and various other councils in which the whole populace was represented (slaves excepted of course).

Rule by a group of upper class citizens does not make a democracy. That's an oligarchy. But according to wiki there were democratic elements:

There are oligarchies that are internally despotic; but there are also internally democratic oligarchies. Of these, the pre-Partition Polish nobility is often cited as an example. It practiced democracy of a sort within its own ranks (even the King was elected), but ruled other social classes despotically.

Athens, of course, had similar features. There was a significant number of slaves, and resident non-citizens, who did not enjoy access to democratic processes.

 

[Craig B]

I don't know if that can be assumed. It doesn't exist in China or even in Hong Kong when it could have done.

May I suggest that is because China has been, apart from some short intervals, a unified single imperial polity. There never existed mercantile republics or anything of that kind.

Athens and early Rome existed in a condition of mutual rivalry with other similar polities, as did the states of early modern Europe. Constitutional experiments are both possible and profitable in such environments.

 

[angrysoba]

May I suggest that is because China has been, apart from some short intervals, a unified single imperial polity. There never existed mercantile republics or anything of that kind.

Athens and early Rome existed in a condition of mutual rivalry with other similar polities, as did the states of early modern Europe. Constitutional experiments are both possible and profitable in such environments.

Could be something to do with that as well. Might I also suggest that something of the struggle between the state and the church may have led to a lot of debate about rights and obligations which became more sophisticated over time.

 

[ddt]

There are oligarchies that are internally despotic; but there are also internally democratic oligarchies. Of these, the pre-Partition Polish nobility is often cited as an example. It practiced democracy of a sort within its own ranks (even the King was elected), but ruled other social classes despotically.

With the "internally", you mean how the system functioned within the ranks of the oligarchs? What would be an example of an internally despotic oligarchy?

Athens, of course, had similar features. There was a significant number of slaves, and resident non-citizens, who did not enjoy access to democratic processes.

You forgot to mention the women who had no access either.

 

[ddt]

May I suggest that is because China has been, apart from some short intervals, a unified single imperial polity. There never existed mercantile republics or anything of that kind.

Athens and early Rome existed in a condition of mutual rivalry with other similar polities, as did the states of early modern Europe. Constitutional experiments are both possible and profitable in such environments.

I agree with you about the rivalry. The same accounts for Medieval and (early) Modern Europe. Why that leads to (limited) democracy is, IMHO, simply explained by: follow the money.

The Greek city states, and the Italic city states constantly warred against each other. The state demanded that its citizens pay for that. In those days, it was payment in kind: the citizens had to buy and care for their own military equipment, and the equipment of a knight was expensive - obviously, with the horse - but also a Greek hoplite's equipment was not cheap. So in return, the citizens demanded a say in the running of the state.

The same accounts for European history. The barons who provided parts of the army to the king wanted a say in government, likewise the cities who had to pay taxes. What was it the American revolutionaries said? No taxation without representation.

 

[Craig B]

With the "internally", you mean how the system functioned within the ranks of the oligarchs? What would be an example of an internally despotic oligarchy?

I mean a social caste whose members have power over members of other social classes, but which itself is dominated by an individual despot.

The Russian aristocracy had power over serfs in the eighteenth century, but was itself (along with everyone else) subject to the unrestricted absolutism of the czars.

You forgot to mention the women who had no access either.

Women's suffrage appears at a very late date. Almost nowhere at all prior to the twentieth century. Without looking up the information, I can think of two places where women could vote then. Wyoming Territory and the Isle of Man.