Examples of pagan, non-Buddhist theocracies?

[Reichcube]

Theocracies as in, landed states or autonomies where rulers are limited to the clerical class instead of the warrior class.

Did they exist among pagans? Was there a celibacy requirement? How was the state inherited?

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Theocracies as in, landed states or autonomies where rulers are limited to the clerical class instead of the warrior class.

Did they exist among pagans? Was there a celibacy requirement? How was the state inherited?

All of the earliest ones, weren't they? Sumeria, Egypt, Babylon, etc. They were priests before they were kings.

 

[Reichcube]

They were priests before they were kings.

Really? In that case, how did they conquer their kingdoms, if they didn't belong to the warrior class first?

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Really? In that case, how did they conquer their kingdoms, if they didn't belong to the warrior class first?

Magic.

On a serious note, persuasion that you have magical powers.

These are small agrarian communities with no permanent military caste. War is really nothing more than occasional opportunistic raiding & cattle-stealing from neighbors. Warbands are basically just peasants assembled (and dissolved) on the spot to defend farmsteads and herds. So "warrior class" is a misnomer at his early stage. Every one is just a farmer. There might be clan chiefs, who conduct judgments among clansmen and might lead them on raids, but they are often elders rather than warriors properly speaking.

Priests, by contrast, are a little more permanent, the first permanent non-farming class. They are special people with special magical powers. As sacerdotes, they conduct sacrifices and intercede with the gods and ensure their blessings on the community for a myriad of pragmatic things (rains, births, disease, etc.). Some claim to have great power (notably controlling the timing of river floods - a veritable superpower for a farming people dependent on floodwaters for their fields).

If you can persuade the people you control supernatural powers, you get deference and gifts from them. Priests typically don't farm, they're too busy doing magic, so are typically fed by others (often the meats & grains offered for sacrifices). You also get others to labor for you and build great temples for you to conduct your secret ceremonies. Temples are also where gifts priests receives (food, trade goods and other stuff) are stored. And from stores, you can re-distribute desirable goods to buy loyalty, and perhaps finance a retinue and temple guards. The priest who controls the distribution of desirable goods among clans and people becomes the powerful man in the community. He also uses his special connection to the gods to undertake judgments and proclaim "laws". Most ancient laws are said to be handed down from the patron god via the priest-king.

Early kingdoms were not really kingdoms but more like confederations of independent communities, each with their own patron gods and priests, who might adhere in alliance to a large leading community with a particular notable high priest.

The idea of a permanent "king", coming from some noble warrior caste, is really a later evolution. Priests & temples come first. And they continue quite late. Indeed, the power of the Patrician class in the Roman Republic rested (at least in theory) on their priestly powers of intercession with ancestral spirits.

 

[DarthJF]

Really? In that case, how did they conquer their kingdoms, if they didn't belong to the warrior class first?

They didn't become kings by conquering kingdoms. Position of king was basically evolution of high priest into higher form of authority that set the ruler apart from ordinary priesthood. You can see this in how many monarchs were in charge of the most important state rituals. Chinese Emperors were not only some dudes with a big army at their command, but the conduit between Heaven and Earth, while Japanese (and many other) Emperors claimed divine ancestry that allowed them to have special relationship with gods.

Warriors evolved later when the early states were able to produce enough surplus to support and maintain seperate warrior class. Before that every man was a warrior when there was a need to fight and a farmer or herder when there wasn't.

 

[DarthJF]

Also, if you read Old Testament in the Bible, it basically covers the evolution of ancient Israel from theocracy into a state ruled by a king.

 

[Rubidium]

Yeah, the priest/king distinction is really a very culturally contingent one. Lots of cultures have treated the king as divine, with priestly duties as equally important (if not more so) than what we might consider their secular ones.

To switch to the New World, consider the central role of Mayan rulers in the religious ceremonies of their states. There's a reason that Mayan stela frequently depict them offering sacrifices, including some fairly painful bloodletting rituals, as well as participating in other ceremonies (such as the famous ball game) and erecting various altars/ritual objects.

 

[Gordy]

They didn't become kings by conquering kingdoms. Position of king was basically evolution of high priest into higher form of authority that set the ruler apart from ordinary priesthood. You can see this in how many monarchs were in charge of the most important state rituals. Chinese Emperors were not only some dudes with a big army at their command, but the conduit between Heaven and Earth, while Japanese (and many other) Emperors claimed divine ancestry that allowed them to have special relationship with gods.

Warriors evolved later when the early states were able to produce enough surplus to support and maintain seperate warrior class. Before that every man was a warrior when there was a need to fight and a farmer or herder when there wasn't.

Magic.

On a serious note, persuasion that you have magical powers.

These are small agrarian communities with no permanent military caste. War is really nothing more than occasional opportunistic raiding & cattle-stealing from neighbors. Warbands are basically just peasants assembled (and dissolved) on the spot to defend farmsteads and herds. So "warrior class" is a misnomer at his early stage. Every one is just a farmer. There might be clan chiefs, who conduct judgments among clansmen and might lead them on raids, but they are often elders rather than warriors properly speaking.

Priests, by contrast, are a little more permanent, the first permanent non-farming class. They are special people with special magical powers. As sacerdotes, they conduct sacrifices and intercede with the gods and ensure their blessings on the community for a myriad of pragmatic things (rains, births, disease, etc.). Some claim to have great power (notably controlling the timing of river floods - a veritable superpower for a farming people dependent on floodwaters for their fields).

If you can persuade the people you control supernatural powers, you get deference and gifts from them. Priests typically don't farm, they're too busy doing magic, so are typically fed by others (often the meats & grains offered for sacrifices). You also get others to labor for you and build great temples for you to conduct your secret ceremonies. Temples are also where gifts priests receives (food, trade goods and other stuff) are stored. And from stores, you can re-distribute desirable goods to buy loyalty, and perhaps finance a retinue and temple guards. The priest who controls the distribution of desirable goods among clans and people becomes the powerful man in the community. He also uses his special connection to the gods to undertake judgments and proclaim "laws". Most ancient laws are said to be handed down from the patron god via the priest-king.

Early kingdoms were not really kingdoms but more like confederations of independent communities, each with their own patron gods and priests, who might adhere in alliance to a large leading community with a particular notable high priest.

The idea of a permanent "king", coming from some noble warrior caste, is really a later evolution. Priests & temples come first. And they continue quite late. Indeed, the power of the Patrician class in the Roman Republic rested (at least in theory) on their priestly powers of intercession with ancestral spirits.

I think you are talking about known civilisations here, the ones with written records. We really have no idea what other, more primitive cultures were doing. They didn't leave us enough records or artefacts for us to make definitive statements about them. They might have begun with warrior kings. Or something else that we can't even imagine.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

I think you are talking about known civilisations here, the ones with written records. We really have no idea what other, more primitive cultures were doing. They didn't leave us enough records or artefacts for us to make definitive statements about them. They might have begun with warrior kings. Or something else that we can't even imagine.

Well, nothing is universal. But much of what I speak of above does not really rely on written records, but more on archaeology. And generally conforms to observations of contemporary "primitive cultures". If anything, written records, often coming a lot later, tend to tilt the other way.

For example, Germanic kings. There is no evidence that Germanic tribes ever had kings before they interacted with Romans. These were clan-based herding communities, without strongholds, stratification nor a warrior caste. Kinda like many North American Indian tribes. But Romans began insisting on speaking to some "king" to negotiate. So they came up with some guy as temporary spokesman and the Romans began calling him "king" and plying him with honors and trade goods. But as far as the Germans themselves were concerned, he was just another dude. And he disappeared as quickly as the Romans created him.

Roman written records will refer to German "kings". But archaeological & other evidence indicates otherwise.

 

[Gordy]

Well, nothing is universal. But much of what I speak of above does not really rely on written records, but more on archaeology. And generally conforms to observations of contemporary "primitive cultures". If anything, written records, often coming a lot later, tend to tilt the other way.

For example, Germanic kings. There is no evidence that Germanic tribes ever had kings before they interacted with Romans. These were clan-based herding communities, without strongholds, stratification nor a warrior caste. Kinda like many North American Indian tribes. But Romans began insisting on speaking to some "king" to negotiate. So they came up with some guy as temporary spokesman and the Romans began calling him "king" and plying him with honors and trade goods. But as far as the Germans themselves were concerned, he was just another dude. And he disappeared as quickly as the Romans created him.

Roman written records will refer to German "kings". But archaeological & other evidence indicates otherwise.

I agree with you about the lack of kings in Germanic society. Or pre-Celtic Britain in places like Skara Brae. But that doesn't mean that they were theocracies. I think people living in small settlements had a tendency towards flat hierarchical structures that were a rough sort of democracy (if you were a man and not a slave that is). It's only really when you get bigger settlements that political decisions can't be thrashed out in a discussion around a camp fire then a show of hands.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

I agree with you about the lack of kings in Germanic society. Or pre-Celtic Britain in places like Skara Brae. But that doesn't mean that they were theocracies. I think people living in small settlements had a tendency towards flat hierarchical structures that were a rough sort of democracy (if you were a man and not a slave that is). It's only really when you get bigger settlements that political decisions can't be thrashed out in a discussion around a camp fire then a show of hands.

Sure. And serves as an example of variety.

If I am going to suggest a pattern, theocracies tend to arise naturally in more sedentary, agricultural societies, where control of natural forces (rains, floods, etc.) are of paramount importance for the survival of agriculture. In such cases, the magical power of priests are really important and they are the first class to become differentiated from the rest of farming society. This is the pattern we see in Egypt, Levant, Mesopotamia, China, India, etc.

Pastoral herding communities are not as beholden to rains, floods, etc. so control of natural forces matter less to them. Germans did have their priests & priestesses, who were special, and could have made the leap to higher ruling caste, had German herdsmen actually given a toss about the rain. So the "rough sort of democracy" you talk about would have probably been the norm in herding societies, not-so-sedentary and proto-agricultural (where agricultural tillage was a minor activity). We see this in early Celtic & Germanic Europe, but also the Eurasian steppes, North America and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Even so, we have witnessed the rise of priests as rulers even in such societies documented in real-time, e.g. the great priest of Chota emerged as paramount leader and established a theocratic state over the Cherokee in the mid-18th Century. A half-century later, further north, Tecumseh's authority in the early 1800s was based on being a lieutenant to his brother the Shawnee prophet Tenskwatawa, who had emerged as authoritative over Northwest Territory tribes. The Cherokee case is very much on the pattern of reception of foreign trade goods, with priests using that as leverage to take control of their societies. The Shawnee case more about being embattled in holy war (possible similar to the German prophetess Veleda during the Batavi revolt, although details are missing).

Roman Latin writers very much "looked" for kings in the tribes they dealt with, and tried to cultivate them. And so we end up with nobodies like Arminius, temporary war chief, being recorded as some sort of king, when he was no such thing and was quickly gotten rid of. But some Germanic tribal spokesmen did use their negotiating power with Rome, and acquisition of Roman trade goods, as leverage over their tribes to actually elevate themselves and actually become kings.

So the route to kingship can come by alternative paths. It is not necessary to be a priest first. But if I would say there is a common feature in paths to kingship it is to position yourself as distributor of desirable goods. It can be distribution of sacrificial temple gifts, distribution of foreign trade goods, or distribution of war plunder. But you don't earn kingship by imposition of force or valor. You buy that initial loyalty and allegiance with stuff.

 

[Barsoom]

Sure. And serves as an example of variety.

If I am going to suggest a pattern, theocracies tend to arise naturally in more sedentary, agricultural societies, where control of natural forces (rains, floods, etc.) are of paramount importance for the survival of agriculture. In such cases, the magical power of priests are really important and they are the first class to become differentiated from the rest of farming society. This is the pattern we see in Egypt, Levant, Mesopotamia, China, India, etc.

Pastoral herding communities are not as beholden to rains, floods, etc. so control of natural forces matter less to them. Germans did have their priests & priestesses, who were special, and could have made the leap to higher ruling caste, had German herdsmen actually given a toss about the rain. So the "rough sort of democracy" you talk about would have probably been the norm in herding societies, not-so-sedentary and proto-agricultural (where agricultural tillage was a minor activity). We see this in early Celtic & Germanic Europe, but also the Eurasian steppes, North America and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Even so, we have witnessed the rise of priests as rulers even in such societies documented in real-time, e.g. the great priest of Chota emerged as paramount leader and established a theocratic state over the Cherokee in the mid-18th Century. A half-century later, further north, Tecumseh's authority in the early 1800s was based on being a lieutenant to his brother the Shawnee prophet Tenskwatawa, who had emerged as authoritative over Northwest Territory tribes. The Cherokee case is very much on the pattern of reception of foreign trade goods, with priests using that as leverage to take control of their societies. The Shawnee case more about being embattled in holy war (possible similar to the German prophetess Veleda during the Batavi revolt, although details are missing).

Roman Latin writers very much "looked" for kings in the tribes they dealt with, and tried to cultivate them. And so we end up with nobodies like Arminius, temporary war chief, being recorded as some sort of king, when he was no such thing and was quickly gotten rid of. But some Germanic tribal spokesmen did use their negotiating power with Rome, and acquisition of Roman trade goods, as leverage over their tribes to actually elevate themselves and actually become kings.

So the route to kingship can come by alternative paths. It is not necessary to be a priest first. But if I would say there is a common feature in paths to kingship it is to position yourself as distributor of desirable goods. It can be distribution of sacrificial temple gifts, distribution of foreign trade goods, or distribution of war plunder. But you don't earn kingship by imposition of force or valor. You buy that initial loyalty and allegiance with stuff.

I would add that Arminius' contemporary Maroboduus held out quite a bit longer, ca. 20 years IIRC. While succession among the Marcomanni and Quadi was always a bit messy, it seems that kingship rather quickly became a permanent position among them. My guess is that the process of settling in a new territory and holding on to it presented more frequent challenges and therefore required more durable leadership.

Contact with Rome as an impetus to institutionalizing leadership is known in the literature as secondary state formation. Arminius, Maroboduus (and Ariovistus etc.) are very early cases, too early for the process to produce any real results; that's why we need a particular cause to explain Maroboduus' longevity. But by the end of the Roman period, we see amalgamation of German tribes into larger confederacies with the majority of them led by distinct elites which were able to agree on appointing war leaders with much less difficulty than Arminius' allies. The process has clear parallels in societies bordering on China. I would also say Cherokee and Shawnee fit the pattern to some degree.

Also, while kingship emerged more frequently in agricultural societies than among pastoralists, there were big differences between agriculturalists. In general, societies that relied on irrigation gave rise to kingship much earlier than other agricultural societies.

 

[Henry IX]

I agree that the priest/king distinction is fairly problematic. Many 'kings' had a critical clerical role, which was often at least as important as their secular one.

So, for the sake of this discussion I will define a theocratic society as one where the highest rank of the priesthood is also the highest secular rank. That is to say, the king has the recognised authority to make religious proclamations as well as secular ones.

By this definition I would argue that the pharaohs were theocratic leaders. There is clear evidence that they could modify the religion (within limits) and that those changes would be accepted by the priests as doctrinal (Akhenaten showed the limits of this power).

In contrast the Sumerian sources seem to indicate that the kings were warriors first and foremost and that the priestly class was distinct and separate. The kings certainly claimed to be specially blessed and the priestly class appears to be absolutely critical to the functioning of the society but the kings did not have religious authority over them nor did they have direct authority over him.

The Gallic tribes are good place to look to see some indications of how temporal power and religious power can be intertwined without producing a theocracy. The Gallic tribe had a mix of leadership styles from groups that were fairly flat to groups with a recognised king with definite power associated with his office. However, the druidic class was also very powerful. Their political power was partly why Caesar had them killed, as they were central to opposition to Roman control. There was, as far as we can tell, no direct lines of authority between the druids and the Gallic leaders. The leaders could not determine religious policy, not could the druids order the king perform specific policies.

On to the actual question in the OP:

Ancient Egypt seems to fit the description of a theocracy fairly well.

The Hindu Majapahit empire in modern day Indonesia fits many of the definitions of theocracy - the king was considered to be a living embodiment of a god and was considered to have religious authority. The high priest was part of his cabinet but took instructions from the king, including in doctrinal issues.

Another way of defining a theocracy is when the priesthood holds the secular power and appoints the ruler. These are much rarer and amost all the examples I can think of are Abrahamic societies. For these societies to form you need a single cohesive religion with a recognised leader, which is only really possible in monotheistic societies or at least those with a single supreme being.

The only non-Abrahamic religions that fit this criteria (that I know of) are Zoroastrianism, some versions of Buddhism and a few versions of Hinduism and Sikhism. Of these the only one I know of that formed a theocracy was the Sikh Empire in the 17th century where the Guru Gobind Singh was both secular and religious ruler. However, no system was established for determining the passing of authority and the Sikh Empire became secular under the leadership of Ranjit Singh.

 

[Reichcube]

There is no evidence that Germanic tribes ever had kings before they interacted with Romans.

Well, didn't they have Jarls? Jarls were the warrior class, and the one with the highest rank in the Jarl-Karl-Thrall hierarchy.
And weren't the "sacred kings" chosen from amongst the Jarls? In which case one could argue that their government wasn't as much of a theocracy as an elective monarchy whose king acquired priestly duties.

So the route to kingship can come by alternative paths. It is not necessary to be a priest first.

EDIT: Nevermind, you do accept the possibility that the first big boss of a community doesn't have to be a priest. My misreading.
Probably, as you hinted at in the previous post, sedentary agricultural societies tended to create hereditary theocracies, while nomadic/pastoral societies could have had a warrior caste first (since war and plunder are much more interesting as a nomad, so good warriors become respected) that later was imbued with priestly powers.

 

[Gordy]

Well, didn't they have Jarls? Jarls were the warrior class, and the one with the highest rank in the Jarl-Karl-Thrall hierarchy.
And weren't the "sacred kings" chosen from amongst the Jarls? In which case one could argue that their government wasn't as much of a theocracy as an elective monarchy whose king acquired priestly duties.

Jarls are Scandinavian, not German. And date back to the medieval era so a long time after contact with the Romans.

EDIT: Nevermind, you do accept the possibility that the first big boss of a community doesn't have to be a priest. My misreading.
Probably, as you hinted at in the previous post, sedentary agricultural societies tended to create hereditary theocracies, while nomadic/pastoral societies could have had a warrior caste first (since war and plunder are much more interesting as a nomad, so good warriors become respected) that later was imbued with priestly powers.

I think the point is that every man was expected to be a warrior when war came so there was no particular warrior caste.

My view is that you need to have enough food production for some people not to work at all to have either a priest or warrior caste. Otherwise they are just farmers / herders that are a bit better at fighting than most or are seen as being wiser than most.

 

[Semper Victor]

Well, didn't they have Jarls? Jarls were the warrior class, and the one with the highest rank in the Jarl-Karl-Thrall hierarchy.
And weren't the "sacred kings" chosen from amongst the Jarls? In which case one could argue that their government wasn't as much of a theocracy as an elective monarchy whose king acquired priestly duties.

The Scandinavian societies of the VIII-XI centuries CE were quite different from the Germanic societies in continental Europe that were contemporaries of the Roman empire. Archaeology has shown that Germanic societies of the times of Caesar and Augustus not only lacked kings, but that they were not even socially stratified, which is confirmed by Roman sources. Still, Roman sources are problematic because they present these societies through the lens of the interpretatio romana and the Romans even forced Roman/Mediterranean social concepts onto them in real life, for practical reasons. If the Romans wanted to establish some sort of agreement with, say, the Cheruschi or the Chamavii, they needed an interlocutor, because otherwise what would have they needed to do? Obtain a specific affirmative answer for each and every arms-bearing member of these tribal groupings, or from the assembly of each settlement? And bear in mind that such younger generations would not have felt themselves tied by agreements made by their elders, so the Romans would have needed to carry on constant negotiations.

This was clearly not practical, and so the Romans imposed over the different Germanic groupings the need of having a single person who spoke for all of them in their negotiations with Rome. And despite the material changes in Germanic societies and the appearence of a true "warrior class" from the late II c. CE onwards, still in the IV c. CE political authority in these societies was extremely decentralized. The only "centralized" Germanic kingdom that we can be sure about is that of the Gothic Greuthungi under Ermanaric, while in Ammianus' account of Julian's campaign against the Franks and Alamanni in Gaul in the 350s CE, it is clear that these groups were not politically unified. This becomes especially clear in his account of the battle of Strasbourg in 357 CE, in which the Alamannic "king" Chnodomarius is sistematically overruled by his warriors and the other reguli of the Alamanni.

 

[Reichcube]

Jarls are Scandinavian, not German. And date back to the medieval era so a long time after contact with the Romans.

Eh, close enough. They were all Germanic, semi-nomadic peoples. And their class structure had a mythical origin, so it's not a stretch to assume its origin was quite old.

I think the point is that every man was expected to be a warrior when war came so there was no particular warrior caste.

My view is that you need to have enough food production for some people not to work at all to have either a priest or warrior caste. Otherwise they are just farmers / herders that are a bit better at fighting than most or are seen as being wiser than most.

In the mythology I've mentioned above, people are born Jarls, Karls or Thralls. So there already was a concept of a warrior caste, who rules for their combat skills and not their priestly powers.

Also, as I've stated before, as a barbarian horde (such as the Steppe nomads), pillaging and raiding is such a profitable endeavor that there is an incentive to develop a warrior caste strong enough to defeat the armies of the cities marked for raiding. Said warrior caste can be fed with the horde's surplus livestock.

 

[Gordy]

Eh, close enough. They were all Germanic, semi-nomadic peoples. And their class structure had a mythical origin, so it's not a stretch to assume its origin was quite old.


In the mythology I've mentioned above, people are born Jarls, Karls or Thralls. So there already was a concept of a warrior caste, who rules for their combat skills and not their priestly powers.

Also, as I've stated before, as a barbarian horde (such as the Steppe nomads), pillaging and raiding is such a profitable endeavor that there is an incentive to develop a warrior caste strong enough to defeat the armies of the cities marked for raiding. Said warrior caste can be fed with the horde's surplus livestock.

As I and others have already said, this is not in the timeframe that is being discussed. Germans living on the fringe of the Roman empire simply didn't have Jarls or anything similar. Germanic culture evolved over time.

 

[Barsoom]

Eh, close enough. They were all Germanic, semi-nomadic peoples. And their class structure had a mythical origin, so it's not a stretch to assume its origin was quite old.


In the mythology I've mentioned above, people are born Jarls, Karls or Thralls. So there already was a concept of a warrior caste, who rules for their combat skills and not their priestly powers.

Also, as I've stated before, as a barbarian horde (such as the Steppe nomads), pillaging and raiding is such a profitable endeavor that there is an incentive to develop a warrior caste strong enough to defeat the armies of the cities marked for raiding. Said warrior caste can be fed with the horde's surplus livestock.

You seem to be under the impression that myths are evidence of pre-historical social structures. That assumes that they didn't change in the 1200 years between the time we're discussing and the time they were written down for the first time. Do we really have to point out to you that if storytellers didn't adapt their tales to their publics' expectations they would be out of business rather quickly?

 

[Gurkhal]

In the mythology I've mentioned above, people are born Jarls, Karls or Thralls. So there already was a concept of a warrior caste, who rules for their combat skills and not their priestly powers.

True, but as has been mentioned that dates back to the later parts of the pagan period in Iceland and perhaps Norway as far as I know. While similar ideas could absolutely have present in earlier times and in other places, we just don't know how they were articulated and changed across time and what cultural meaning they had for the people living while Norse/Germanic mythology was a living tradition.

As far as I know, and I am in no way an expert, a separate class of "lords" (I know its not the correct word but I hope you get the idea) started to appear in the later times of the Roman Empire, from my understanding when surpluse and profits from trade down towards, and from, said Roman Empire had accumilated in the hands of a number of families so that these could set themselves apart from the rest of society and started to form ties with each other for marriage, contacts, trade etc. to further differentiate themselves from the poorer people around them, whom these "lords" could dominate and through intergenerational wealth ensure their control over their local communities.

Also, as I've stated before, as a barbarian horde (such as the Steppe nomads), pillaging and raiding is such a profitable endeavor that there is an incentive to develop a warrior caste strong enough to defeat the armies of the cities marked for raiding. Said warrior caste can be fed with the horde's surplus livestock.

I believe that you are right in that specialization into fighting could absolutley have occured with people becoming warriors or raiders due to talent and such, and very possibly banding together for such purposes.

However there's a fair gap between saying that a culture has people that specialize in fighting or raiding and saying there's a warrior class where such a position, and presumably wealth to go along with it, is inherited. Just because, for example, the Norse had specialists in magico-religious practices such as völvas don't mean they had a priestly class in their society.