Romanticisation of Feudalism

[Mythopoet]

(did you know certain knights financed the Crusades by kidnapping people and holding them for ransom?)

Did you know that in every place and period of history, there were bad people who did bad things?

Seriously, it seems like you've got a very specific picture in your mind of feudalism means that is not representative of the thing as a whole. And also like most people you're probably judging feudal times by your own modern sensibilities. Medieval peasant weren't all miserable slaves living in squalor, like the modern myth insists. Were some peasants miserable? Sure. There are miserable people everywhere in every time. There are powerful people who take advantage of less powerful people everywhere in every time. You don't judge a whole system by it's worst offenders.

 

[Tom]

I don't read too many books that portray peasants as happy and healthy anymore.

It seems slightly unfair to me to criticize a historical phenomena from a modern perspective without putting it into context and considering the limitations of the time.

The whole system originated out of the fall of the Roman Empire that left people desperate for physical protection from invading people. People were more concerned about not being killed, their wives raped and crops taken than they were about abstract political rights. So the men who could protect their communities from violence, through their own use of violence rose to the top of the food chain. Bob other there who is telling me that he will teach my children to read is less attractive as a leader than Dave and his rather large well armed family who are telling me that they will keep the marauders from burning my house down and selling my children into slavery.

It takes a certain prosperity and infrastructure for a democracy to work well. That just didn't exist in the middle ages Even now in some third world countries where there are computers, cell phones, cars and roads it can take weeks for votes to be gathered and counted. Can you imagine what that process would be like in say Bavaria in 875? How does an illiterate pre-printing press culture get enough information to decide who to vote for for a national leader?

If someone was to suggest the modern US would be better off with a King, I would take that as absurd. If someone was to say that most of the time, the Habsburgs did a pretty good job running their empire...that is a much more nuanced question.

Like elected representatives, some monarchies were well run and effective. Some were not.

I also think you were a tad harsh on the church...but that is a different story.

Yeah...I know the real-world reason why feudalism worked, but in a fantasy setting, there's often no explanation for how it works in that particular world. There's usually no reason the people have organized themselves into feudal states--the land is relatively peaceful, no invaders, no war at the moment. It just drives me crazy to see a fundamentally broken system, adopted out of pure necessity, romanticized in fantasy as the default form of government, and often the best. What is the first thing everybody does after defeating the dark lord? Re-institute the monarchy that was in place before he took over.

Historic feudalism doesn't bother me (too much), but oftentimes fantasy feudalism does.

Yeah, I was a little hard on the Church...but the Medieval Church was a whole different ballgame than the Church we've got now. I was raised Protestant, and I still sometimes rag on the Catholic Church. Bad habit.

 

[Tom]

Did you know that in every place and period of history, there were bad people who did bad things?

Seriously, it seems like you've got a very specific picture in your mind of feudalism means that is not representative of the thing as a whole. And also like most people you're probably judging feudal times by your own modern sensibilities. Medieval peasant weren't all miserable slaves living in squalor, like the modern myth insists. Were some peasants miserable? Sure. There are miserable people everywhere in every time. There are powerful people who take advantage of less powerful people everywhere in every time. You don't judge a whole system by it's worst offenders.

I'm not judging the system by its worst offenders. I'm just saying, feudalism was not the most ideal form of government. It was effective in protection and for warfare, but it was so because it took the power out of the hands of the majority and put it into the hands of a minority. And that minority with power were free to do with the powerless what they would. If they were good rulers, that meant protect and look out for the best interests of the people under them. If they were bad rulers--well, they did bad things with the power they held over the heads of their people.

Those are some nasty implications, and ones that often don't surface in a fantasy story where feudalism is upheld to be the only right and true form of government.

 

[Mythopoet]

I'm not judging the system by its worst offenders. I'm just saying, feudalism was not the most ideal form of government. It was effective in protection and for warfare, but it was so because it took the power out of the hands of the majority and put it into the hands of a minority. And that minority with power were free to do with the powerless what they would. If they were good rulers, that meant protect and look out for the best interests of the people under them. If they were bad rulers--well, they did bad things with the power they held over the heads of their people.

Those are some nasty implications, and ones that often don't surface in a fantasy story where feudalism is upheld to be the only right and true form of government.

There's no such thing as an ideal form of government. If you think America's system really places the power in the hands of the many then you are very naive.

 

[Tom]

There's no such thing as an ideal form of government. If you think America's system really places the power in the hands of the many then you are very naive.

Mythopoet, I'm not saying there's an ideal form of government. "Not the most ideal form of government", is just my way of saying "Man, it sucked". There. I said it. Feudalism sucked, as does pretty much every other form of government (and lack of government too, but that's a different story).

What I'm saying is that fantasy stories that have a feudalistic setting often portray feudalism as the ideal. I am simply trying to say that that is inaccurate. Maybe I overstated my point, but hey. At least I got my point across.

And if you'll read a few posts back, you'll see what I have to say about America's government system. Even though it's broken and flawed and slowly going downhill (and really, everything we humans touch does just that, just because we're human) it's still a hell of a lot better than some other government systems out there.

As a last point, please don't call me naive. I enjoy discussing this sort of thing with people whose view is different than mine, but sometimes I feel you are just trying to start an argument. If you respond with a personal jab of any kind, I will not continue this discussion. Thanks.

 

[Russ]

Yeah...I know the real-world reason why feudalism worked, but in a fantasy setting, there's often no explanation for how it works in that particular world. There's usually no reason the people have organized themselves into feudal states--the land is relatively peaceful, no invaders, no war at the moment. It just drives me crazy to see a fundamentally broken system, adopted out of pure necessity, romanticized in fantasy as the default form of government, and often the best. What is the first thing everybody does after defeating the dark lord? Re-institute the monarchy that was in place before he took over.

I can understand your frustration with this. Depending on who you are reading you can really wonder how much thought went into the world building behind the feudalism and the monarchy in some fantasy stories. It does seem to be a "default setting" although I think less so now than say 30 years ago. I guess the counter argument is that at certain levels of technology certain types of government are likely to occur. Monarchy or variations of it have popped up throughout human history. I am not surprised authors just go to it by default.

I had never really considered your point about how the immediate reaction is to restore the monarchy after defeating the bad guy. That is really food for thought. My initial instinct is to say that people are backwards looking and the idea of returning the the "golden age" before the crisis is probably pretty seductive. But I think the question deserves better analysis than that.

 

[skip.knox]

It's worth pointing out that feudalism and monarchy are not synonyms. It sounds to me the objection is to hereditary monarchy, and perhaps to the whole notion of an aristocracy of blood.

 

[ThinkerX]

I (sort of) grapple with this issue in my stories; its part of the 'big background picture.'

Solaria is an empire, a nation that through diplomacy and conquest controls a number of other states. Solaria itself is very roughly patterned after old line Rome: a number of aristocratic families presiding over a large bureaucracy that keeps the wheels turning unless they're actively on fire. About 120 - 140 years prior to the time of most of my tales, Solaria was merged via marriage and treaty with Avar, a sort of quasi Celtic feudal realm (the Avar invaded Solaria centuries earlier and claimed part of it for themselves.) The new imperial dynasty - Avars - decided they liked certain aspects of Solaria's governance and adopted them - things like an imperial (legionary) army instead of peasant levies, a widespread bureaucracy, and so on.

By the time of my stories, this clumsy welding together of disparate systems is starting to result in social chaos: feudal lords had large numbers of their serfs pressed into the legions to fight in a long protracted war. At conflicts end, the former serfs - and their immediate families were declared freemen and awarded plots of land in the conquered territories, effectively creating the nucleus of a middle class - something the aristocrats view as an abomination. Likewise, the war spurred technological development: bicycles are appearing in ever greater numbers, and a network of thousands of signal towers spans the empire, ensuring that news of all sorts reaches the nations far corners in mere days. Hence a protest or major riot in Equitant (NE Solaria) is the topic of gossip and possible inspiration in Carbone (Central Empire) almost immediately. Meanwhile, knights in shining armor are fading from the picture, and imperial agents are taking increasingly dim views of feudal border wars and lords who place themselves above the law.

Law. That, in my view, is one of the things that really sets a true national government above a feudal one: the point at which the law becomes something that even the mightiest of nobles must obey, instead of selectively using it to keep their subjects in line.

The intent is to portray a society in change, one evolving from the feudal matrix.

 

[skip.knox]

You make a worthwhile historical point, ThinkerX, in how your society shifts with regard to law. In European history, at least (but I think also in China), it was the monarch who finally brought the nobility to heel. The monarch was divinely burdened with responsibilities--to be just, to act as a father to his people, etc.--while the nobles had no such obligation. The king, so went the ideology, held the law; the nobles were famously laws unto themselves.

One consequence of this, naturally, was the rise of absolute monarchy. A medieval king had to be strong, but an early modern king desired to be unchallenged. And down that dialectical road lay popular revolution.

The politics of your world, ThinkerX, feel genuine.

 

[Russ]

You make a worthwhile historical point, ThinkerX, in how your society shifts with regard to law. In European history, at least (but I think also in China), it was the monarch who finally brought the nobility to heel. The monarch was divinely burdened with responsibilities--to be just, to act as a father to his people, etc.--while the nobles had no such obligation. The king, so went the ideology, held the law; the nobles were famously laws unto themselves.

One consequence of this, naturally, was the rise of absolute monarchy. A medieval king had to be strong, but an early modern king desired to be unchallenged. And down that dialectical road lay popular revolution.

The politics of your world, ThinkerX, feel genuine.

It is a funny little circular thing really. Firstly the monarchy (sometimes in some places) brought the nobility under the rule of law, but often the reverse happened with the nobility forcing the monarchy to respect both custom and the rule of law (ie Magna Carta, parliaments, Diets and loans in the Habsburg lands, how wars were financed in England etc).

It was a twisting and turning struggle that was not really resolved until they both got their asses kicked in the modern era.

 

[SeverinR]

There were good kings and there were bad kings.
Abuse of power is easier when people are bestowed great power just by birth.

I would offer, fantasy tends to offer only polar monarchs. Either the great king eveyone loves, the kingdom thrives and everyone lives happily ever after.
Or
The evil king everyone hates and or fears, people are forced to slave to keep the kingdom running, and there is misery.

I would bet, most kingdoms were highs and lows of every category, for good or bad leaders. The evil king thrives, much like Hitler did at the start of his rise, thriving on conquered lands. And even the most beloved leaders had to deal with hard times.

Also, the chain of command allows with a good king, a bad governor could exist or reversed.

I think this allows alot of leadway in writing. You can have almost any combination of leadership. I tend to believe democracy is limiting to writers at a glance. But a democracy is just as foulable and can have polar opposites in power. The people vote in the people in power, they are human so mistakes happen. Early democracies can fail to have measures in place to remove the bad leader, which can lead to strife.

But in a democracy, you have to reason out why people fell for something or allowed goverment to do something. In Feudal system you can simply call it a whim, no one but the leader has to like it and it gets done. In a democracy, once people hear about it, they will embrace it or rebel against it.

Its also less romantic to have people rebel against the people's choice, rather then against the noble born crown. When a noble is bad, elite nobles are to blame. When representitives are bad its the reps and the people to blame. When a rep is bad, some people still like the rep. but when a king goes bad, usually only those that benefit from the king remain loyal, and they are easily disliked also, as they are either power hungry or money hungry.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I feel like the reason we use monarchs in fantasy is two fold. First, it's a lot easier to deal with conceptually than a democracy or a republic. Second, tradition.

Republics and democracies are generally far more difficult, and let's be honest more boring, than writing about a monarchy. Take a look at the American system. A federal republic. With three sovereigns. First, the people are the ultimate sovereigns. The states have plenary police powers to regulate health, general welfare, and morals of their jurisdiction. The feds have powers to regulate that which is listed in the various articles of the Constitution. These often overlap and come into conflict with one another. And depending on the Supreme Court's mood either could trump the other. The states have their own law making system which generally follows the federal law making system. Then there are different courts that say different things.

The actual law making process complicates the system even more with committees, sub-committees, commissions, reports, votes, hearings, notes, floor debate, presentation and approval or denial by the president, then if denied a vote to overcome the veto. This is so so so boring to those that aren't interested. Who wants to listen to a bunch of octogenarians debate about the merits of any bill. No one. So who wants to read about it? No one. It's boring, complicated, and just blech. This is coming from a guy that will listen to a committee hearing after typing this post.

Monarchies and feudalism are conceptually far more simple. King says do x people do x. Nobles say do y people do y. Nobles every so often try to usurp the king by having a bigger army so they can be king. Simple easy. Of course, this could be chalked up to the fact that we never lived through the daily workings of feudalism and so don't understand all the subtle nuance like we do democracies, and honestly its the nuance that makes things difficult and boring. This means authors are allowed more handwavium and requires less knowledge. Also, by not dealing with it everyday it makes it seem more exotic, and thus more exciting.

Also, fantasy's tradition is in the medieval setting. Tolkien, Lewis, Jordan, Martin, Brooks, all medieval. All are what we think of when we hear fantasy. And "[tradition] can be harder to change than law." The Wheel of Time (can't remember the exact book and page number sorry). It's this tradition that keeps us bound to the feudal system.

 

[ThinkerX]

It is a funny little circular thing really. Firstly the monarchy (sometimes in some places) brought the nobility under the rule of law, but often the reverse happened with the nobility forcing the monarchy to respect both custom and the rule of law (ie Magna Carta, parliaments, Diets and loans in the Habsburg lands, how wars were financed in England etc).

oh, I have something like this as well:

First Avar Emperor: Morgan DuSwaimair - skilled general, honorable as a stick, spent most of his reign fighting in the provinces. Didn't muck with the government too much. Very rough model: Charlemagne.

Second Avar Emperor: Louis DuSwaimair - long reign, only marginally competent. Didn't accomplish much. Model: Louis, Charlemagne's successor.

Third Avar Emperor: Franklin DuSwaimair. Not originally in line for the throne, was almost assassinated by rivals from Solaria. Stepped down hard on all opposition, many midnight trials and executions of political rivals. Expanded the bureaucracy to maintain greater personal control, built the initial signal tower network for the same reason. Banned feudal levies in favor of the legion model for the same reason. Despised by the aristocracy, well liked by the common classes - think 'populist dictator.' Then he died (of natural causes).

Next Emperor was supposed to be Franklins son, who had all of dad's bad points and none of the good ones. The nobility freaked, and employed legal measures that had sat unused for centuries to anoint the fourth Avar Emperor (Franklin's nephew) Thurmond, who established rule by law. This was...call it a half century or so prior to the time of my tales.

Big subtheme going on is a clash between the Maximus (who sat the Luminous Throne more than once in centuries past) and the DuSwaimair's. The Maximus province of Niteroi is effectively a slave state, folks there either obey the Maximus or die, and like most slave state overlords, the Maximus are highly unthrilled with technological development, common soldiers being granted land and full citizenship, nobility being subject to law, and a whole bunch of similar stuff. They want the old 'estate' model imposed across the empire - and there are a lot of aristocrats across the empire who agree with them, and a substantial number of commoners who find these changes unnerving.