Which pre-industrial societies had the most social mobility between classes/castes?

Which pre-industrial societies had the most social mobility between classes/castes?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably Rome because nowhere else could ex or son of slaves ascend to top hierarchy and an emperor every once in a while. Note that it usually meant bad times for everyone else.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Entirely dependant on which Rome you are talking about. From your pic I’m assuming you were taking about Byzantium but the The principate was way better to live in and had equal social mobility, and the Early Republic (assuming you were actually Roman) had way more social mobility.
      Byzantiums force de jure succession system did allow commoners to seize the throne but in 90% of cases it was just a sauce of instability and coups from the military or aristocracy.

      >nowhere else could ex or son of slaves ascend to top hierarchy
      Disagree, I think Venice had far more social mobility.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/Aq08ujm.jpeg

      Entirely dependant on which Rome you are talking about. From your pic I’m assuming you were taking about Byzantium but the The principate was way better to live in and had equal social mobility, and the Early Republic (assuming you were actually Roman) had way more social mobility.
      Byzantiums force de jure succession system did allow commoners to seize the throne but in 90% of cases it was just a sauce of instability and coups from the military or aristocracy.

      >nowhere else could ex or son of slaves ascend to top hierarchy
      Disagree, I think Venice had far more social mobility.

      hilarious

      you're all wrong
      it's the Celts, and to a lesser extent Germanics
      maybe you could make the argument for Scythians or other steppe people, but we don't know enough to really say how these things went

      despotism is Oriental, and Roman

      voluntary associations of freemen are a facet of Celtic culture, the basic organizational form of their government and jurisdiction was similar to what the Irish would call Tuath

      you had to be accepted by the group to attain peerage, but that was a LOT easier than obtaining rights in Rome or the Near East, and if for some reason you had an in-group falling out you could just leave and try to join another Tuath

      one that was probably in a confederation for mutual defense with other tuatha

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >freemen associations/tuatha
        sources on this? genuinely interested

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          bruh I'm not going to say this is elementary common knowledge and I'm not here to spoon-feed you

          but I did just explain in very simplified fashion what Tuatha is

          it that just not a good enough starting point? Idk, maybe read Tacitus' Germania. Germans had this thing called a Thing. Maybe you've heard of it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean sources beyond general knowledge, damn.
            I HAVE heard of this. But that's it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not much more knowledgeable than you man. But I do have a copy of Germania chilling right over there on my shelf next to Marcus's Meditations.

            I guess try checking out Welsh history maybe, that's always neat and they're the closest thing I know of to a direct successor to the British tribes that Caesar fought.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Which pre-industrial societies had the breast social mobility between classes/castes?
    What?

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Medieval Europe.
    After the Black Death.
    There just was a necessity to reshuffle society.
    Entire noble families died out, and loads of people got promoted to replace them.
    Probably also explains, the turbulent eras that followed.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think they had the best social mobility of the time but a commoner could become a samurai and even a daimyo in feudal japan until Toyotomi Hideyoshi banned the possibility of it (and he was a commoner raised into nobility by Nobunaga)

    It really do be your own homies that screw you over

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Small scale tribal societies, since social layers are either minimal or- in the case of elective councils- non-existent.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You might think this is true on the surface.

      Ever hear of something called "small town mentality"? People get very cliquish and conformist in smaller groups. There is really no mobility in this system, everyone is more or less equal at least nominally. In practice some people are going to push others around and you won't be able to do much about it.

      Barbarism > Tribalism

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Classical Greek City States & Medievale City State Republics where there is democracy and relatively liberal degree of civic participation (shit they named the concept even).

    Honorable mention is Imperial China where meritocracy is literally the law.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >meritocracy is literally the law.
      downside is that most of the population is absolutely moronic and you can just start an uprising if you meritocratically fail to succeed.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's also part of what made Imperial China more socially mobile: the people owned weapons and Mandate of Heaven memes meant bad/shit governments get fricked and anyone can rise to the throne.

        Social mobility is neither a good or a bad thing, it just means social classes are fluid and people can move up and down the social ladder.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Imperial China

      Not. The peerage is not something you can attain just by passing the civil service exam. Even if you're a scholar-bureaucrat, you're still a commoner.

      >Greek city states
      Again, nope.

      Attaining citizenship was not easy. The majority of people in a city would not be eligible to vote.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Peerages were the equivalent of modern british knighthoods rather than medieval european (or earlier Feudal Chinese) hereditary nobility, especially in later Imperial China when nobles wielded less power, peerages were handed out as rewards, and high ranking peerages were hoarded by the Imperial Family.

        In addition those "commoner" officials wielded tremendous power.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So you're telling me that the scholar-bureaucrats exercised power and authority that belonged to them personally.

          And didn't simply operate in the name of Heavenly Emperor, or whichever governor ruled.

          Sorry, but that technically doesn't count as participating in government in the same way an Athenian citizen or member of a tuath would.

          Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't see any Chinese bureaucrats voting on executive decisions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >scholar-bureaucrats exercised power and authority that belonged to them personally.

            De facto they practically did. The legitimacy of the Dynastic Imperial System in China doesn't totally rest on the Emperor and his Imperial family personally, but rests on how well his government can rule the land. If they rule well, they have "the mandate of heaven" and thus legitimate, if they suck then they lose said mandate and it was considered the moral duty of subjects to "restore" the mandate by looking for the next virtuous ruler (i.e. deposing the incumbent dynasty).

            Politically, this meant that Imperial China wasn't an absolute monarchy for it means EVERY branch of government contributes to claims of Dynastic legitimacy. The Emperor claims the "Mandate of Heaven" but part of claiming that mandate is ruling well, and a big chunk of ruling well according to Confucian socio-political precepts listening to "wise counsel" (whatever that is) which you could obtain by promoting officials on merit. In pfactice this therefore meant that power in Imperial China (especially in Mid-Late Imperial China, roughly 600s-1800s AD) was a balancing act between the Emperor and his Officials, where the Emperor theoretically "ruled everything" but officials wielded tremendous power by actually being the administration. The Emperor had the power to overrule officials by decree, but at the same time the officials can counterbalance the emperor's decree by influencing court politics (usually through Eunuchs and members of the Imperial family), by forming cliques and simply advising the emperor that said decree is unwise/unfeasible/undoable, or simply disobeying the emperor and formulating counter policies, which (if they had enough support in court) could simply pressure the emperor into doing so, especially if the emperor was weak.

            There's a reason why so long as court officials are good, a dynasty can have a shit degen emperor and can still survive.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the officials can counterbalance the emperor's decree by influencing court politics (usually through Eunuchs and members of the Imperial family)
            >simply disobeying the emperor and formulating counter policies

            lmao
            yeah I get how that works, and why it was occasionally a big problem for everyone

            that's still not the same as enjoying *legitimate* personal sovereignty and being recognized as such by your peers

            no matter how much power or influence an individual bureaucrat can claim to have, he'll never be recognized as a legitimate authority in himself

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Early Islam. Arabs (meaning at this point "people from Arabia", not MENA people in general) were on top but there weren't that many of them and converts could reach substantial levels of power just by being willing to embrace Islam.
    Eventually it got so bad that the Umayyads tried to restrict conversion to save the tax base, and it was one of the things that got them overthrown.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >substantial levels of power
      Uh, so you attained the right to rule or participate in government just through conversion?
      In other words, personal sovereignty and status as a freeman.

      doubt.png

      I don't think the Caliphate was very egalitarian.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Roman army 235-285 AD. You go to sleep as a normal chud and wake up as Chvdicvs Flavivs Germanicvs Avgvstvs.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *