Why were more egalitarian meritocratic ancient societies always

>>3075486
Because meritocracy doesn't ultimately reward virtue or talent and because egalitarianism is distopian.

File: 20170420_131943.jpg (95KB, 298x362px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 298x362px

>egalitarian meritocratic ancient societies
>Dacia, Saxony, Anglo-Saxons

This is what Americans ACTUALLY BELIEVE

Because Oligarchy achieves the same goal than Meritocracy (government of the Best), but faster.

>>3075499
Dacians didnt have slaves and personal talent was more respected there than connections and family name, same as saxony on that matter. Anglosaxons lacked serfs and many of their elite soldiers like huscarls achieved their rank through fighting skill, not social class like the normans.

>>3075486
>Why were more egalitarian meritocratic ancient societies always defeated
>implying
Full meritocracies like revolutionary France had no problem conquering all of Europe.
Proto-meritocracies like Switzerland had no problem burying knightly armies left and right.

>>3075514
>not having slaves makes it a egalitarian meritocratic society
>people advancing in society through the military makes it egalitarian and meritocratic

All those societies were dominated by their nobility. People were gifted and rewarded for loyal and good service to their lord. You could be the greatest swordsman alive but your advancement depends on how your lord is feeling.

I would also like to add that only the nobility and the wealthy could afford to arm and train themselves so they would tend to be the ones that were members of royal body guards.

>>3075486
>Rome versus Dacia
Rome had an empire to draw on, if not for that they would have lost to all the Falxmen
>HRE vs Saxony
Saxony was in the HRE, or do you mean Charlemagne vs HRE, if so franks had better cav
>Norman vs Saxon
Saxons had little to no cav or archers, flatter than where shieldwall is best, saxons force marched down from the north and were already wounded, Normans were better equipped due to more wealth
These aren't level playing fields m8
>>3075661
>implying it wasn't total war that made France survive
Wew lad

>>3075514
anglo sazons had slaves...

File: american-ed.jpg (21KB, 400x398px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x398px

>>3075672
France didn't "survive", it conquered the rest of Europe, easily, because it had a more modern army and a meritocracy.
You might want to check what meritocracy means, cause
>i.e. rome versus dacians, HRE vs saxony, normans vs saxons,
those are shit examples, not only are none of those meritocracies, but most examples are historically simpyl wrong.

>>3075680
Meritocracy the promotion due to ability not through socio-economic position
France surviving the initial attacks and then being able to launch counter attacks same with Louis XIV wars

>>3075700
>same with Louis XIV wars
no, the sun king's France for sure was not a meritocracy.
Why don't you read up a little how societies worked back then, and why the French revolution was a true revolution.

>>3075672
Charlemagne vs the pagan saxons

>>3075680
I said COMPARABLY MORE meritocratic. Not meritocratic. For example theres no way to convince me that romans were as meritocratic as dacians or germanic chiefdoms.

In rome the only way to be a consul or general was to have the right bloodline or and be the emperor's butt buddy.

>>3075862
>I said COMPARABLY MORE meritocratic.
France at the time of Louis XIV was a the epitome of an absolutist monarchy and as far away from meritocracy as it gets.

>>3075862
>In rome the only way to be a consul or general was to have the right bloodline or and be the emperor's butt buddy.
Rome was a Republic 509 BC - 27 BC, where a meritocracy was in place, at least for the upper class of society.

We simply don't know enough about dacian or german early societies to judge the level of meritocracy in their society, so your example is pure shit.

And just to say
>HRE vs saxony, normans vs saxons,
are shit examples too. Why exactly did you make this thread?

China

>>3075862
>In rome the only way to be a consul or general was to have the right bloodline or and be the emperor's butt buddy.

In the Roman Republic, it was possible for plebians to hold office, either through the tribune of the plebs (which held immense power through veto) or through the senate and the cursus honorum. Admittedly, few plebians made it, but the ones who were able to get into the senate / hold positions in the government were men like Cicero, which I would say is fairly meritocratic.

As for the empire, although the highest positions were more locked out through the emperorship & patrician clans, there were still ways for the common man to rise up to the 3rd in command of the legion, the praefectus castrorum (which was usually held only by ex-centurions that made primus pilus), not to mention that all of the centurions were promoted based on merit in battle.