# Romanticisation of Feudalism



## Gryphos (Feb 19, 2015)

Do you ever feel that the general epic fantasy tends to romanticise the concepts of Monarchy and Feudalism? I dunno, I recently re-watched Lord of the Rings for the umpteenth time, and while I absolutely love Tolkien's world and story, it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth the way he romanticised the idea of kings and monarchic rulers. Similarly, you get GRRM, whose series has led to a romanticisation of feudalism and the medieval political game in general. And that also leaves a bad taste in my mouth, however much I love his plots.

I mean, obviously feudalism and monarchy and terrible concepts of government and social structure (even 'constitutional monarchies' are a load of bullshit). But whenever I see stories about 'the game (of thrones)' I just want to stick up my hand and remind people that governing a country and maintaining the welfare of its population isn't a 'game'.

*shrugs* I guess this is why I'm one of the people who hopes ASoIaF will end with a popular uprising and establishment of a democratic parliamentary system.


----------



## stephenspower (Feb 19, 2015)

I'm with you. I can't stand fantasy novels in which the world must be saved for feudalism.


----------



## CupofJoe (Feb 19, 2015)

Politics of any sort is a game... 
Always has been, always will be. 
That is what is in these stories, the politics... 
Whether it is the politics of grand armies and kings striding across continents, who gets the best seating at the state functions or who get elected to Mayor... it is a game for those playing. 
It is all about the acquisition and retention of power...
It used to be you measure success by the size of your army and the fact you still had a head on your shoulders... now it is sometimes a little more nuanced with the counting of votes and opinion polls...
 Most of the time, the day-to-day [mundane but important] governing is usually left well alone and far from the tales told.
I've never read a fictional book about ensuring proper sanitation for the health of the populace...
I could be cynical and say that most of the people in politics don't want to govern at all  but more important to them is that they don't want "the other side" to govern either... I can't imagine that in a fantasy world it would be much different.


----------



## Gryphos (Feb 19, 2015)

CupofJoe said:
			
		

> Politics of any sort is a game...
> Always has been, always will be.
> That is what is in these stories, the politics...
> Whether it is the politics of grand armies and kings striding across continents, who gets the best seating at the state functions or who get elected to Mayor... it is a game for those playing.
> It is all about the acquisition and retention of power...



Well, I suppose many people _do_ see it as a game. I'm arguing that it isn't one. Kings striding across continents have people back in their kingdoms who need feeding, who need protecting. And I don't think it's a healthy and productive stance to take that anyone is 'playing the political game', as it devalues the real people who live or die based on the outcome of the 'game'. But again, maybe that's just me.



> I've never read a fictional book about ensuring proper sanitation for the health of the populace...



No, but personally I would love to read about someone who genuinely sought to ensure those things.


----------



## X Equestris (Feb 19, 2015)

The thing a lot of people overlook is that feudalism and monarchies are the best forms of government available in some places under certain conditions.  Democratic forms of government require their voting populace to be decently educated and at least minimally tolerant of the existence of minorities if they are to function even remotely responsibly.


----------



## Gryphos (Feb 19, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> The thing a lot of people overlook is that feudalism and monarchies are the best forms of government available in some places under certain conditions.  Democratic forms of government require their voting populace to be decently educated and at least minimally tolerant of the existence of minorities if they are to function even remotely responsibly.



I suppose, but just because it's the most convenient system in a specific situation doesn't make it a _good_ system in any way whatsoever. Feudalism is a system of oppression and monarchism is a system by which someone can have authority because of their last name.


----------



## X Equestris (Feb 19, 2015)

Democratic governments aren't necessarily any better. Their politicians play the same, or worse, political games that the nobility plays in a feudalistic setting.  All being a politician in a democratic government means is that you won your election, possibly by the slimmest of margins, and possibly by foul means.  That election might not even be very representative of the will of the public.  Democratic governments also have to contend with demagoguery, which has been the downfall of many a democracy.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 19, 2015)

Is this the place where I raise my hand and say there was no such thing as feudalism? It's a lawyer's construct long since debunked by historians, but kept alive in popular mythology and bad textbooks. This probably isn't the place to slog through the details, but I can provide references for those brave enough to read late medieval legal theory.

There were plenty of good kings (e.g. Louis IX), far more mediocre ones, very few outright bad ones (e.g. Henry VI). Usually the bad ones were simply bad at being king rather than being tyrannical or evil.

I don't think monarchy is intrinsically bad. Wise rule is wise rule, and the form that takes is sort of irrelevant to the common person. Most people were not oppressed by kings for the simple reason that the king's reach did not extend that far.  We have to be careful not to project the frightening efficiency of modern government back into the Middle Ages, when the height of financial management meant putting *two* locks on the treasury lid under your bed. People give medieval government way too much credit.

All that said, yes people do romanticize the Middle Ages. There are very good cultural reasons why we do this, reasons so deeply seated that there is little historians can do in the face of it. That's why more people have heard of GRRM than have heard of Susan Randall. I don't mind. Human cultures need their myths more than they need our history.


----------



## Penpilot (Feb 20, 2015)

Well, quite a lot of fiction romanticise periods in time, WW2, the '50s, the '60s, the '70s, the '80s, etc.

I think it's human nature to romanticise the past. And there's a general tendency to think the past was a better time, when in reality it was probably because one was too young to notice the flaws. Or in the case of periods before one's life, it tends to be like fiction, all the boring parts removed, and all the good stuff condensed. 

Just look at the last 20 years, the computing revolution, the rise of the internet, instantaneous communication and information via smartphones. Exciting times, but not quite romanticised yet because we're still living it. But I bet in a another 20 years, people will be daydreaming about how awesome it would be to live in our present, where new discoveries are being made all the time.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 20, 2015)

We are all of us living in someone else's future. I don't remember who said that to me, but it has always stuck.


----------



## Gryphos (Feb 20, 2015)

skip.knox said:
			
		

> I don't think monarchy is intrinsically bad. Wise rule is wise rule, and the form that takes is sort of irrelevant to the common person.



But isn't it still ideologically and morally wrong for someone to be born into a position of power/authority? I can't be alone in thinking that.


----------



## Telcontar (Feb 20, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> But isn't it still ideologically and morally wrong for someone to be born into a position of power/authority? I can't be alone in thinking that.



Absolutely. The concept of inherited nobility is perverse - but it's also easy to see how it came about. Hell, it still exists in many ways - wealthy and powerful parents pass on a great deal of their wealth and power to their children. People on top tend to stay on top through sheer inertia and accumulated power, regardless of actual ability or merit.

You might say that pairing success to merit is one of the long-term challenges of the entire human race.


----------



## Penpilot (Feb 20, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> But isn't it still ideologically and morally wrong for someone to be born into a position of power/authority? I can't be alone in thinking that.




There's a bit of gray area here. Humans are tribal by nature. Tribes need leaders. Ideally, we'd say rule by council, by majority vote, or something like that. But that isn't the most efficient way to lead, especially when quick decisions need to be made. The armed forces command structure is an example of this. 

If an alpha male rises to power and is able to keep their tribe fed and relatively prosperous, when they have offspring, ideally, they pass on the physical and mental traits on to their children, in a way cloning themselves.  It's like Grog was a good leader, so his son Brog will be one too because Grog taught him everything he knows. 

Obviously this isn't necessarily what always happens in reality, but you have to think it's a tendency that happened often enough to have it be something that developed all around the world.

Even in the modern world we tend to attribute the qualities of the parent onto the children. People think JFK was a good president, so his son, before his death, was assumed to be president in waiting, so to speak. There are phrases like "Like father like son" "Like mother like daughter". These are concepts that are ingrained into humanity.

So back to the statement of it being morally wrong to be born into a position of power/authority. I say it depends. It's not black and white. Here's the thing, Any parent that has some level of authority/power passes some of that along to their children by default. For example, Jill's Mom own's the hardware store, so Jill has the authority to run behind the counter and play with the hammers all she wants. OR Jill's Mom owns the restaurant, so she can ask the chefs to cook her and her friends meals for free.

Taking it back to leadership and rule, say Grog dies and his son Brog is set to take his position as leader of the tribe, but before he does, there's an open call for challengers. If a challenger can prove they're a better leader than Brog, they become leader. Doesn't that make things marginally better? And I think that gets at, at least in part, where the problem is. It's not hereditary rule, but the inability to challenge that rule or displace it in a fair manner if the succeeding ruler proves unfit.

Edit: Gahh.. Just realized part of my post got ninja'd by Telcontar while I was writing it.


----------



## X Equestris (Feb 20, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> But isn't it still ideologically and morally wrong for someone to be born into a position of power/authority? I can't be alone in thinking that.



Not all monarchies are hereditary.


----------



## Russ (Feb 20, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> But isn't it still ideologically and morally wrong for someone to be born into a position of power/authority? I can't be alone in thinking that.



That is an interesting question.

There is some value in being identified as a future ruler as early as possible.  It allows the resources neccessary to train that person to be the future ruler to be applied early and often.  I suspect there is a lot to learn to be King or Emperor, and with education much more constrained and shorter lifespans you had to start early.

Somebody up stream suggested medieval finances were quite simple.  I would disagree.  They engaged in taxation, borrowing, had mortgages, and all sorts of credit notes.  If you look at how the English kings had to finance their overseas wars or how the Habsburgs had to finance their empire through local diets etc...there was a lot of sophisticated stuff going on.


----------



## Gryphos (Feb 20, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> Not all monarchies are hereditary.



Very true, but if I'm not mistaken in all cases the person ascending to throne comes from some sort of nobility which they were born into (except for very rare cases which are exceptions to the rule).

As to monarchies' efficiency factor, meh, I suppose. But to me that doesn't mean shit when you compare going the wrong direction quickly or the right direction slowly.

Yes, I understand that monarchies are a naturally developing thing and in the past probably were (as opposed to the lesser of two evils) the only evil possible. But I still can't stand it when people romanticise it. It's a (efficient) immoral system that propagates oppressive class structures. Democratic council/parliamentary systems are, while inefficient at times, still vastly superior to any monarchic system on moral grounds.

I suppose this comes from my tendency to draw a very big distinction between what is and what should be. Monarchies are and have been, for a reason I understand. However, they shouldn't be.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 20, 2015)

I am chary of bringing my own morals into someone else's story. If they want to romanticize monarchs or even monarchy itself, then have at it. All I ask is they tell me a good story.

As for judging the historical institution, I'm a historian by training, so my job is to understand rather than to judge. I recognize this is peculiar to my profession, so others are free to pass judgment on all human history if they wish. But you won't be able to persuade me personally. Institutions are not intrinsically good or evil; only the people who inhabit them are. You may take that as Skip's Eternal Verity #8 which, along with $2.50, will get you bus fare in most major cities.


----------



## Jabrosky (Feb 21, 2015)

If monarchy and other non-democratic systems of government prevail in most high fantasy settings, I would chalk that up less to romanticization of those systems than to the prejudice that high fantasy must take place in pre-industrial civilizations. And most of those did have social stratification to one degree of another. Even classical Athens let only 10-20% of its population participate in its "democracy", all of them men with military training.

I'd even go so far as to suggest a stratified organization makes sense for a society with a high population density, the prerequisite for "civilization" as we conventionally understand it. You need leaders to manage all those people and get them to cooperate. Pure egalitarian democracy (or anarchy or communism if you prefer) works better for hunter-gatherers or horticulturalists with low population densities. 

Does this mean the government of a pre-industrial civilization has to be a hereditary monarchy? Maybe not, but if you want to rule the kingdom, having parents with years of ruling experience would give you an educational boost above the other candidates.


----------



## cupiscent (Feb 21, 2015)

Some fun related reading for this thread:
 - Max Gladstone on Sacred Kingship in Fantasy and how maybe monarchy is just a symbol for control over our own "kingdom" (an older piece)
 - io9's 10 worst misconceptions about medieval life you'd get from fantasy fiction which doesn't get into the feudal monarchy, but has some other great stuff


----------



## Gryphos (Feb 21, 2015)

skip.knox said:
			
		

> As for judging the historical institution, I'm a historian by training, so my job is to understand rather than to judge.



And I totally respect this as a stance.



			
				skip.knox said:
			
		

> Institutions are not intrinsically good or evil; only the people who inhabit them are.



If you'll forgive me, I find this to be rather like saying "slavery isn't evil; only the slave owners are". Technically, you could argue semantics on whether or not an act itself can be good or bad as opposed to just those who carry it out, but for all intents and purposes the act can be considered wrong. You could have a good king, but he'd be part of a shitty system.



			
				Jabrosky said:
			
		

> If monarchy and other non-democratic systems of government prevail in most high fantasy settings, I would chalk that up less to romanticization of those systems than to the prejudice that high fantasy must take place in pre-industrial civilizations. And most of those did have social stratification to one degree of another.



Absolutely. My problem isn't with having monarchies in a high fantasy setting, it's simply with the romanticisation of them or the system that supports them. I just want a few more fantasy writers to take a step back and think about the moral implications of the systems they're portraying.


----------



## Jabrosky (Feb 21, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Absolutely. My problem isn't with having monarchies in a high fantasy setting, it's simply with the romanticisation of them or the system that supports them. I just want a few more fantasy writers to take a step back and think about the moral implications of the systems they're portraying.


It depends on the story.

One of the most stereotypical high fantasy plots is a violent invasion threatening the protagonists' homeland. Regardless of that homeland's system of government, most of us would consider brutal military aggression against it to be morally reprehensible (especially if they brutalize citizens other than the governing class).

I don't even think a democratic nation _necessarily_ would have the moral high ground in a conflict with a monarchy. Just because a country has a democratic system for its own citizens doesn't mean their cultural norms respect foreigners, for example. If the United States of America were to nuke a peaceful African kingdom run by a benevolent monarchy to get its oil, and the American people voted in support of their government's decision (perhaps influenced by news stations or celebrities which receive government "rewards" for endorsing their agenda), I wouldn't say the US would qualify as the good guys.


----------



## Gryphos (Feb 21, 2015)

Jabrosky said:


> I don't even think a democratic nation _necessarily_ would have the moral high ground in a conflict with a monarchy. Just because a country has a democratic system for its own citizens doesn't mean their cultural norms respect foreigners, for example. If the United States of America were to nuke a peaceful African kingdom run by a benevolent monarchy to get its oil, and the American people voted in support of their government's decision (perhaps influenced by news stations or celebrities which receive government "rewards" for endorsing their agenda), I wouldn't say the US would qualify as the good guys.



Of course not. Democratic nations aren't automatically _better_, per se, than monarchic ones. They just have a fairer and more moral system of governing. In the same way, a monarch isn't necessarily worse at governing than an elected council, they just became the leader through a worse system.


----------



## X Equestris (Feb 21, 2015)

Jabrosky said:


> It depends on the story.
> 
> One of the most stereotypical high fantasy plots is a violent invasion threatening the protagonists' homeland. Regardless of that homeland's system of government, most of us would consider brutal military aggression against it to be morally reprehensible (especially if they brutalize citizens other than the governing class).
> 
> I don't even think a democratic nation _necessarily_ would have the moral high ground in a conflict with a monarchy. Just because a country has a democratic system for its own citizens doesn't mean their cultural norms respect foreigners, for example. If the United States of America were to nuke a peaceful African kingdom run by a benevolent monarchy to get its oil, and the American people voted in support of their government's decision (perhaps influenced by news stations or celebrities which receive government "rewards" for endorsing their agenda), I wouldn't say the US would qualify as the good guys.



I think the best example of something like this is in the infamous destruction of Melos by Athens during the Peloponnesian War, where Athens basically claimed that because they were stronger, they could do as they pleased.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 21, 2015)

If fantasy authors were to step back and reconsider politics, they would face some serious story-telling challenges. True, they could portray city-states on the model of northern Italy and southern Germany, but those systems were hella complicated and would utterly mystify most readers. Not exactly a major goal for an author. Moreover, given a pre-industrial but post-Roman society, having something other than kings would be even more disorienting for the reader. I don't say many authors are lazy, but one can't really blame them for not having to re-invent politics when they only want to tell the adventures of some ... adventurers.

Besides, as others here have implied, *all* political systems have moral implications. If an individual wants to talk about the relative morality of political systems, a fantasy story probably is not the best rhetorical choice. I'm not saying don't do it, but I am saying it's an unusual choice and one ought not blame the whole profession for generally not choosing it. Similarly, a scholarly political science paper probably isn't the best place to examine elves versus dwarves.

Maybe it's because I'm not outraged by monarchy. Scratch that: I'm not outraged that it has existed. If I lived under it, I'd be making placards and sharpening guillotines. It's not monarchy so much as aristocracy that curdles my skin.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Feb 22, 2015)

Monarchy in fantasy doesn't bother me. Fantasy characters being born into inherently superior bloodlines bothers me. Monarchy is just one of the possible vehicles for "You're better than everyone else because you were born that way." (Notably, at least one of the authors who uses that blood stuff actually believes it's true in real life.)


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 28, 2015)

Possibly, but pretty much everyone today romanticizes democracy and representative government so... *shrug* Pretty much any form of government only really works well in theory. Once you stick actual fallible people in there it all goes to hell.


----------



## stephenspower (Feb 28, 2015)

> moral system of governing



Side comment: a non-theocratic government is not a moral body nor are its laws moral, although they may try to reflect a moral code or other ideal. Of course the theocratic-minded in, say, a democracy, will insist otherwise.


----------



## Gryphos (Feb 28, 2015)

stephenspower said:


> Side comment: a non-theocratic government is not a moral body nor are its laws moral, although they may try to reflect a moral code or other ideal. Of course the theocratic-minded in, say, a democracy, will insist otherwise.



A government may not be a 'moral body' per se (though it's arguable that it should be), but a system that it operates under can be moral. By that I guess I mean 'not immoral'. Democracy is 'not immoral' because in essence it is fair, whatever other flaws it may have.

Laws ... often definitely aren't moral. Sometimes they are (I think we can all agree murder's pretty bad). But what is undoubtable is that laws _should_ be moral. They should be a code based on moral principles. Yes, I am aware that morality varies from culture to culture and person to person, but that's not really the point. The point is that a place with laws should base those laws on moral principles, whatever they may be.


----------



## X Equestris (Feb 28, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> A government may not be a 'moral body' per se (though it's arguable that it should be), but a system that it operates under can be moral. By that I guess I mean 'not immoral'. Democracy is 'not immoral' because in essence it is fair, whatever other flaws it may have.
> 
> Laws ... often definitely aren't moral. Sometimes they are (I think we can all agree murder's pretty bad). But what is undoubtable is that laws _should_ be moral. They should be a code based on moral principles. Yes, I am aware that morality varies from culture to culture and person to person, but that's not really the point. The point is that a place with laws should base those laws on moral principles, whatever they may be.



Is democracy always fair, though?  The Confederate States of America had a democratic government.  It most certainly wasn't fair.


----------



## Gryphos (Feb 28, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> Is democracy always fair, though?  The Confederate States of America had a democratic government.  It most certainly wasn't fair.



The democratic process itself is fair. Whether the results of it are is a different matter.


----------



## CupofJoe (Mar 1, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> The democratic process itself is fair. Whether the results of it are is a different matter.


The democratic process in biased and unfair to many groups of people subject to it... In the UK I can think of several... those under voting age... those convicted of a crime... those that are homeless... those deemed mentally incompetent and many other groups [bankrupts I think are stopped from voting]. And I'm not even going to start in with the demographics of most politicians... [White, Rich, Middle/Upper Class and Male] Or how it is predicated on popularity that can be overtly and covertly manipulated by relatively small group of people/companies/entities for their own ends...
Or that to stand for election in the UK you have to pay [Â£500] to register...
I'm with Winston Churchill.... "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Fantasy Stories often [too often perhaps] rely on a faux history based on times when Monarchy was the almost universal form of government. It is a story setting and maybe a plot device rather than a political commentary.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 1, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> The democratic process itself is fair. Whether the results of it are is a different matter.



I wouldn't call a system that has as its most basic structure that the majority gets what they want and the minority doesn't a fair process.


----------



## Tom (Mar 1, 2015)

I don't like reading romanticizations of monarchy and fuedalism. It probably has something to do with my being American. Also something to do with the fact that I used to romanticize them myself, until I was hit with Limyaael's Rants, the fantasy equivalent of a sledgehammer. 

Romanticization of monarchy and feudalism bother me because of the subconscious ideas they promote. In feudalism, peasants have no rights. They're basically slaves. The lord has all the power. A lot of feudalistic fantasies take that the next step by implying that the peasants are actually _lesser_ than the nobles on a level that has nothing to do with class. The hero, though raised a peasant, often discovers that he's really a noble. That implies that your inherent worth as an individual lies in what class you were born into. That class distinctions--and the morals and beliefs that supposedly go with them--are written into your DNA. (And, as working class, I say "Screw that".) 

Plus, many feudal fantasies ignore the nasty realities of feudal life and write all the peasants as happy and unrealistically healthy and well-educated (when in reality the life of a peasant was one of the harshest, most miserable, ignorant, and _shortest_ lifes to lead), the nobles as fair and just, and knights as protectors of the people and the peace (did you know certain knights financed the Crusades by kidnapping people and holding them for ransom?). They also usually don't show how much influence superstition and fear of the supernatural influenced everyday life, and how the church discouraged medical practices such as surgery or dissecting dead bodies to study how the human organism worked, as well as spreading fear and resentment of the middle class and keeping the economy stagnant by forbidding interest on loans of any kind.

I won't talk much about monarchy. It irritates me too much, and I fear that if I get going on it it'll turn into a rant. Here's my one thought on the matter: I don't like monarchy because it's one person ruling many. One person simply cannot claim to speak for the will of the masses. Diversity such as sex, race, class, level of education, and religion negates that. Usually monarchy enjoys greatest success in a fairly rigid, uniform society that promotes conformity and places more worth in the collective than the individual. After all, the European Enlightenment (when the Classical idea of the individual>collective was rediscovered) is when monarchy started to falter.


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 1, 2015)

CupofJoe said:


> The democratic process in biased and unfair to many groups of people subject to it... In the UK I can think of several... those under voting age... those convicted of a crime... those that are homeless... those deemed mentally incompetent and many other groups [bankrupts I think are stopped from voting]. And I'm not even going to start in with the demographics of most politicians... [White, Rich, Middle/Upper Class and Male] Or how it is predicated on popularity that can be overtly and covertly manipulated by relatively small group of people/companies/entities for their own ends...
> Or that to stand for election in the UK you have to pay [Â£500] to register...
> I'm with Winston Churchill.... "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
> Fantasy Stories often [too often perhaps] rely on a faux history based on times when Monarchy was the almost universal form of government. It is a story setting and maybe a plot device rather than a political commentary.



Oh trust me, I've ranted to people enough about how shitty the current system is in the UK. When I say democracy, I mean the essence of the word, that being power to the people, elected leaders, etc. not any specific real world systems, because a lot of them have a terrible implementation.


----------



## Gryphos (Mar 1, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I wouldn't call a system that has as its most basic structure that the majority gets what they want and the minority doesn't a fair process.



Well, it's fairer than the minority getting what they want and the majority not.


----------



## Tom (Mar 1, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Well, it's fairer than the minority getting what they want and the majority not.



Exactly. What's happening right now in the US is that certain vocal minorities--on both sides of the aisle--are drowning out the majority. It's frustrating to see our system abused by politicians who have no interest in promoting the good of the people, and are instead focused on either promoting their own agendas, or catering to or stamping on certain minorities, or both. And again, this practice goes down in both the Right and the Left. We've taken a sharp turn away from democracy in the US, and I find that depressing.


----------



## X Equestris (Mar 1, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Well, it's fairer than the minority getting what they want and the majority not.



I find the quote about "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner" to be accurate sometimes.  I love democratic forms of government, but their greatest weakness is that the majority can get not just what they want, but oppress the minority.


----------



## CupofJoe (Mar 1, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Oh trust me, I've ranted to people enough about how shitty the current system is in the UK. When I say democracy, I mean the essence of the word, that being power to the people, elected leaders, etc. not any specific real world systems, because a lot of them have a terrible implementation.


But Democracy *is* a concept, an implementation of a theory... Flawed and usually far from ideal, from the Greeks on forward. 
Imperfect and prone to error and corruption of that ideal... Hey humans are involved. We always screw up a good thing.
If we are going for the theoretical concept... I'm voting [] for a benevolent dictatorship or a humanist rationalist theocracy...a whole lot cheaper and more effective.


----------



## Russ (Mar 1, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> I find the quote about "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner" to be accurate sometimes.  I love democratic forms of government, but their greatest weakness is that the majority can get not just what they want, but oppress the minority.



Well, when it comes to collective decisions or rules that need to be done for a large group of people, and you think all citizens should have input, than democracy is about as good as it gets.  Does it produce some "winners" and some "losers", absolutely.  But there seems to be no better alternative that I am aware of.

The thing people don't talk about often enough in the "democracy" discussion is how real democracies work.  Almost all of the well functioning democracies have a well constructed constitution that prevents the majority from screwing minorities too badly in the political arena.

Perhaps I should just say "I think constitutional democracies work pretty well."


----------



## Russ (Mar 1, 2015)

Tom Nimenai said:


> I don't like reading romanticizations of monarchy and fuedalism. It probably has something to do with my being American. Also something to do with the fact that I used to romanticize them myself, until I was hit with Limyaael's Rants, the fantasy equivalent of a sledgehammer.
> 
> Romanticization of monarchy and feudalism bother me because of the subconscious ideas they promote. In feudalism, peasants have no rights. They're basically slaves. The lord has all the power. A lot of feudalistic fantasies take that the next step by implying that the peasants are actually _lesser_ than the nobles on a level that has nothing to do with class. The hero, though raised a peasant, often discovers that he's really a noble. That implies that your inherent worth as an individual lies in what class you were born into. That class distinctions--and the morals and beliefs that supposedly go with them--are written into your DNA. (And, as working class, I say "Screw that".)
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Mythopoet (Mar 1, 2015)

Tom Nimenai said:


> (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 (Mar 1, 2015)

Russ said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 1, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2015)

Tom Nimenai said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2015)

Tom Nimenai said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2015)

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 (Mar 1, 2015)

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 (Mar 2, 2015)

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 (Mar 2, 2015)

skip.knox said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2015)

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 (Mar 2, 2015)

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 (Mar 3, 2015)

> 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.


----------

