This is similar to what happened in Europe b/w arpund 400 and 1000. The Roman Empire grew corrupt and decayed, leaving a fractal political hierarchy loosely coordinated by the church and intermarried nobility. This loose confederation was called the dark ages or low middle ages.
By all means there were pros and cons. Clearly trade was much more difficult, but local economies were more self-sufficient. Stifling and corrupt bureaucracy was much less of a problem, but it was a roll of the dice whether your local lord was a sociopathic minityrant. The reach of a state was limited and escape was geographically easier, but it was difficult to be assimilated elsewhere. The size of internecine wars was kept in check by the presnce of multiple opportunistic armies on every microstate's border, but it was difficult to organize defense against powerful outside invaders like the Arabs, Huns, Bulgars, and later the Mongols - although to be fair Rome didn't fare much better. In the end the game theory of strongest army wins caused consolidation into states and later empires.
Small states plus freedom of trade and movement seems like an optimum, but I'm not sure it's actually possible. Even the most successful such confederation, the German one that spawned the reformation, was eventually forced to consolidate around a quasi-military dictatorship. Maybe changing the economics of violence changes this - if immigrants bring wealth with them perhaps assimilation is more incentivized; and likewise the returns to local tyranny are reduced if peasants can hold their own wealth irrevocably.
SpacemanSpiff
npub1ag…q2rzr
2024-05-14 14:16:45
in reply to nevent1q…sms6
Author Public Key
npub1aguq8a8yc30nm5l33vklu2nqsuwg2g5d9s4phdqp9wtfjlfdjzxqdq2rzrPublished at
2024-05-14 14:16:45Event JSON
{
"id": "32698f61536d9569fb071c184ea69f361a28846e7a155bac7d8deb78a9f02ad1",
"pubkey": "ea3803f4e4c45f3dd3f18b2dfe2a60871c85228d2c2a1bb4012b96997d2d908c",
"created_at": 1715696205,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"22c112bc909406ed069bba9c8f8eeb48ecf1042c2a65a9607f0b3ef7ec31e575",
"",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"b7996c183e036df27802945b80bbdc8b0bf5971b6621a86bf3569c332117f07d"
]
],
"content": "This is similar to what happened in Europe b/w arpund 400 and 1000. The Roman Empire grew corrupt and decayed, leaving a fractal political hierarchy loosely coordinated by the church and intermarried nobility. This loose confederation was called the dark ages or low middle ages.\n\nBy all means there were pros and cons. Clearly trade was much more difficult, but local economies were more self-sufficient. Stifling and corrupt bureaucracy was much less of a problem, but it was a roll of the dice whether your local lord was a sociopathic minityrant. The reach of a state was limited and escape was geographically easier, but it was difficult to be assimilated elsewhere. The size of internecine wars was kept in check by the presnce of multiple opportunistic armies on every microstate's border, but it was difficult to organize defense against powerful outside invaders like the Arabs, Huns, Bulgars, and later the Mongols - although to be fair Rome didn't fare much better. In the end the game theory of strongest army wins caused consolidation into states and later empires.\n\nSmall states plus freedom of trade and movement seems like an optimum, but I'm not sure it's actually possible. Even the most successful such confederation, the German one that spawned the reformation, was eventually forced to consolidate around a quasi-military dictatorship. Maybe changing the economics of violence changes this - if immigrants bring wealth with them perhaps assimilation is more incentivized; and likewise the returns to local tyranny are reduced if peasants can hold their own wealth irrevocably.",
"sig": "41081d1365caf40fb103f7d7775d794fa155eb71373c1322c45fa5d7216f815ba3f3216c583b6ed3b75c865f0f81efebb0925db3badf9714d50127a2c9b4017d"
}