Egalitarian societies in history?

[Lord Finnish]

What societies in pre-modern history have had at least some degree of gender equality? I mostly mean this in a legal manner: it's understandable that women don't go to war or they don't receive education in statesmanship, whereas it's understandable that men aren't expected to take care of the home and so forth. We'll be judging equality in legal terms: rights to independence, inheritance, divorce and other fundamental freedoms.

I know only two: ancient Egypt and Sparta. Were there any more or were all societies full-on patriarchies? I know the much-adored Athens was so misogynistic that they could teach the Taliban a thing or two about subjugation.

 

[HuzzButt]

If I recall correctly the Akkadians were noted for being extremely misogynic and in contrast to earlier dynasties of the area.

 

[medopu]

Basically when it comes to empires, the more egalitarian empire becomes, the sooner the collapse comes (I'm not implying anything for the future, but it has happened in the past at a 100% rate)
http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf

 

[Lord Finnish]

Basically when it comes to empires, the more egalitarian empire becomes, the sooner the collapse comes (I'm not implying anything for the future, but it has happened in the past at a 100% rate)
http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf

Egypt disagrees. One of the the longest living and most important cultures in history and it was egalitarian from beginning to the end. I would place the death of ancient Egypt in 212 when Roman law came to effect for everyone due to citizenship - a bloody long time from the beginning in what, 4th millennium BC?

 

[medopu]

Egypt disagrees. One of the the longest living and most important cultures in history and it was egalitarian from beginning to the end. I would place the death of ancient Egypt in 212 when Roman law came to effect for everyone due to citizenship - a bloody long time from the beginning in what, 4th millennium BC?

True that, well... to an extent. Egyptians though did have slaves, slaves even helped build pyramids (they were in the quarries), and they had male-only high priests. Yes, compared to some civilizations... they were liberal in many other areas though.

 

[Lord Finnish]

True that, well... to an extent. Egyptians though did have slaves, slaves even helped build pyramids (they were in the quarries), and they had male-only high priests. Yes, compared to some civilizations... they were liberal in many other areas though.

Class segregation is not a matter of gender equality.
Other than that I can agree that decadence is a killing thing for many empires, but I don't think women gaining influence is a factor. If anything, it seems that societies that subjugate their women the hardest tend to be those that fall the hardest. Using Egypt as example again, it was able to maintain its prosperous culture virtually unchanged for thousands of years even under foreign rule, whereas their contemporaries, the aforementioned Akkadians collapsed only after a few generations and even if their legacy persisted they never really got up again in the same manner until much later. Male-dominated societies to me seem to be inflexible whereas societies where women have greater freedom and influence seem to be more adaptive to changing conditions. If you demote half of your entire population to slavery, besides the actual slaves, then you don't have much mobility and when you run into trouble you're boned. I also think that reducing women to animal status is very bad for the economy since you will lose a ton of manpower as men have to take care of trade and other things, where as a society like Egypt can have women in those posts to free men to do men's work.

 

[Eusebio]

Basically when it comes to empires, the more egalitarian empire becomes, the sooner the collapse comes (I'm not implying anything for the future, but it has happened in the past at a 100% rate)
http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf

Seriously?

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Seriously?

Silence, subaltern! Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb Pasha has spoken.

 

[Bonafide]

I'm pretty sure the Mongol Empire was arguably egalitarian as far as rights go in a militaristic super empire that spans across the known world?

 

[diegosimeone]

Minoans and generally most of ancient Greek ones pre-600BC

 

[gagenater]

Seriously?

Read his paper - seems pretty solid to me. It's not really about egalitarian principals or feminism - just points out a set of very strong correlations - that 'great powers' pass through a series of distinct identifiable phases - that they are reasonably predictable at least in hindsight - that the phases often take place over a period of 10 generations/250 years. He offers lots of evidence and lays out a path for further fruitful research that could expand, confirm or deny his hypothesis.

 

[Xeorm]

Read his paper - seems pretty solid to me. It's not really about egalitarian principals or feminism - just points out a set of very strong correlations - that 'great powers' pass through a series of distinct identifiable phases - that they are reasonably predictable at least in hindsight - that the phases often take place over a period of 10 generations/250 years. He offers lots of evidence and lays out a path for further fruitful research that could expand, confirm or deny his hypothesis.

I remember reading it earlier and thinking similarly without looking until someone pointed out how cherry-picked a lot of the information can be. Just saw this little gem: He marks off the Ottoman Empire as lasting only 250 years by having it end in 1570.

 

[gagenater]

I remember reading it earlier and thinking similarly without looking until someone pointed out how cherry-picked a lot of the information can be. Just saw this little gem: He marks off the Ottoman Empire as lasting only 250 years by having it end in 1570.

Yes - he does cherry pick. But he also at the end offers a methodology to expand, prove or disprove his hypothesis. It strikes me as an idea that could benefit a great deal from more research and he says so straight up. His essay is more of a 'stub' than a fully fleshed out thing. Someone with the right expertise and staff could probably unearth some real sociological and/or psychological gems if they pursued his train of thought more fully.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Someone with the right expertise and staff could probably unearth some real sociological and/or psychological gems if they pursued his train of thought more fully.

Seriously. No one with the right expertise would follow that, unless they were specifically doing a study of weird and schematic Grand Theories Of History.

 

[soda7777777]

Seriously. No one with the right expertise would follow that, unless they were specifically doing a study of weird and schematic Grand Theories Of History.

What do you mean?

 

[DarthJF]

Prehistoric Japan seemed rather egalitarian having female queens/shamans as rulers. Queen Himiko and stuff.

Though there's very little information available outside of some Chinese descriptions which might or might not be all that accurate.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

What do you mean?

Once you actually develop training and expertise in historical methods, it becomes very obvious that these kinds of Grand Theories Of History are far too schematic to be of any use in understanding historical change, and they are only really interesting for what they show about the values and understandings of their authors (case in point, see how much Sir John Grubb talks about "The Welfare State" as a sign of decadence...).

 

[DarthJF]

Once you actually develop training and expertise in historical methods, it becomes very obvious that these kinds of Grand Theories Of History are far too schematic to be of any use in understanding historical change, and they are only really interesting for what they show about the values and understandings of their authors (case in point, see how much Sir John Grubb talks about "The Welfare State" as a sign of decadence...).

Not to mention he completely ignores empires that don't fit into his narrative, like Byzantium, China, Egypt etc. and questionably cherry picks Ottoman and Russian timelines that roughly fit into his 200+ year cycle.

 

[soda7777777]

Once you actually develop training and expertise in historical methods, it becomes very obvious that these kinds of Grand Theories Of History are far too schematic to be of any use in understanding historical change, and they are only really interesting for what they show about the values and understandings of their authors (case in point, see how much Sir John Grubb talks about "The Welfare State" as a sign of decadence...).

Ah, yes. I haven't even finished university, and I already loathe people trying to pigeon hole history with their "theory". Ugh.

Prehistoric Japan seemed rather egalitarian having female queens/shamans as rulers. Queen Himiko and stuff.

Though there's very little information available outside of some Chinese descriptions which might or might not be all that accurate.

I just listened to a podcast about that.

 

[Kuipy]

Once you actually develop training and expertise in historical methods, it becomes very obvious that these kinds of Grand Theories Of History are far too schematic to be of any use in understanding historical change, and they are only really interesting for what they show about the values and understandings of their authors (case in point, see how much Sir John Grubb talks about "The Welfare State" as a sign of decadence...).

You mean like Marx?