>>18436789
Less technology = less state apparatus

>>18436789
as the other guy stated, it was just harder in general for states to properly control since they to suffered from a lack of being able to know things and know them in a timely manner, not helped by the fact things such as plagues and famines hit far harder and more frequnetly back then which always brings instability, then you have two problems, more local nobles were more influential making it likely they could try to gain more power, either by taking control or by further decentralizing and thus giving them more power which brings instability, then you have the majority of the pop being substance farmers who don't really have much to lose by joining in on whatever wacky adventur some rebellion is promising

>>18436789
>That lack of information extended both ways, you might not learn of a revolt till it had already arrived at your doorstep with pitchforks
>Lack of buy in from the populace: people had less loyalty to the state because the state did less for them. It's harder to justify a rebellion against a government when you benefit from its services every day and know that a rebellion might interrupt those services, most people throughout history were rural subsistence farmers who gained nothing from the state yet had their shit taken by it anyway, thus they have little to lose from a change in government.
>Low state complexity, depth and redundancy: Most historical states ran primarily on personal relationships and authority and had paltry bureaucracies and institutions compared to modern ones. This means that power is centered around individuals and their whims rather than more constant and well defined "ideologies". If a Duke wants to revolt against the King, there's nothing really stopping him from ordering everyone under him to join him in his rebellion, because their power derives from their personal relationship to the Duke, not to some nebulous territorial government.
>Cost: when all you need to stage a coup is a dozen guys with swords, it's a lot easier to pull off than needing to manage the logistics of an industrialized war effort.

>>18436789
Local networks of power existed, ie all states were more decentralized which allowed rebellions to even function, whereas nowadays the government is the only force in society and most people in a town don't even know each other and cannot organize anything. The only organization that happens is national or international and done through the internet, which can only facilitate revolt with outside support(as in Syria, for example)

>>18436819
What about Nepal? Isn't their revolution unique?

>>18436874
Idk

>>18436874
Didn't they do it on Discord

>>18437116
They elected their prime minister on Discord, the consequences of this will be interesting