blog Fantasy and Monarchy

[Aldarion]

Aye, they don't need a lot of defense, but it's not an attack on them to say that there might be some missed potential if you don't consider alternatives.

Agreed, but on the other hand, you should consider realities of the society... for example, last episodes of A Game of Thrones? Nothing there makes any sense at all. Even George Martin himself created a system that is more modern than medieval in its nature.

And if you want to examine various different options, you can easily have them all within the context of a feudal monarchy...

I suppose I should add, I would not see much need to investigate the form of government further than 'there was a king' unless the story was about the politics, and I was supposed to be rooting for or against the king. Did it matter to Frodo how the elves organized? Not really. Why delve into it deeper unless the story was about changing their system.

Author should delve deeper when thinking about it: even when you are not writing about politics of a society, they can still impact the story. Look at Lord of the Rings: it is not a political story, yet politics affect every aspect of it.

 

[Queshire]

Agreed, but on the other hand, you should consider realities of the society... for example, last episodes of A Game of Thrones? Nothing there makes any sense at all. Even George Martin himself created a system that is more modern than medieval in its nature.

And if you want to examine various different options, you can easily have them all within the context of a feudal monarchy...

Never seen a single episode so I'm afraid that comparison is lost on me.

On the whole I do think that it's better for writers to try to think about things within the context of the setting in question, but at the same time you can't lose sight of the fact that you're writing for a modern day audience. Monarchies pop up enough in fiction that everyone generally has a rough idea how they work and democracies cover enough of the world that if you're writing in English you can generally count on your readers having a rough idea how those work as well. That familiarity can make them a pretty attractive option if developing the governments further isn't a priority for the story you're telling at the moment.

That, however, should be a conscious choice by the writer. As you say politics can still have an impact on the story even when it's not the focus and can add a feeling of depth to a world.

Like I said, I just want to have the feeling that people have thought things through. Show me a prince that's actually been trained to be a future head of state. Have him break out the abacus and demonstrates what he learned from his finance lessons growing up when the heroes have to deal with the merchant or debates philosophy with the party mage around the campfire at night.

 

[Aldarion]

Never seen a single episode so I'm afraid that comparison is lost on me.

On the whole I do think that it's better for writers to try to think about things within the context of the setting in question, but at the same time you can't lose sight of the fact that you're writing for a modern day audience. Monarchies pop up enough in fiction that everyone generally has a rough idea how they work and democracies cover enough of the world that if you're writing in English you can generally count on your readers having a rough idea how those work as well. That familiarity can make them a pretty attractive option if developing the governments further isn't a priority for the story you're telling at the moment.

That, however, should be a conscious choice by the writer. As you say politics can still have an impact on the story even when it's not the focus and can add a feeling of depth to a world.

Like I said, I just want to have the feeling that people have thought things through. Show me a prince that's actually been trained to be a future head of state. Have him break out the abacus and demonstrates what he learned from his finance lessons growing up when the heroes have to deal with the merchant or debates philosophy with the party mage around the campfire at night.

Yeah, I think I might have a different perspective here because I was always interested in history, but I never liked it when authors made mistakes in their works. I mean, one of books that helped get me interested in history was Izum Profesora Leopolda (Invention of the Professor Leopold) by Anto Gardaš. It basically involves time travel into Roman times... and plot involves Battle of Mursa, Emperors Vetranio, Constantius and Magnentius, and Mursa itself. So I always saw popular literature and media in general as being an important educational tool, which makes me kinda allergic to any sort of major mistakes, even in fantasy shows such as Game of Thrones.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

The last episode of GoT was sad and pathetic, but people sitting around making up a system that doesn't make sense seems par for the course for humans, heh heh. Honestly, I remember very little of GoT's last season, let alone the last episode, and I prefer it that way.

And seriously, why do people worry about what period of Euro history something is pulled from? Maybe it's none, and they just use familiar words to make it easier, heh heh. I do my best not to borrow anything except maybe familiar words to make it easier. King doesn't mean the same thing to everyone any more than president does. Definitions vary.

 

[Aldarion]

The last episode of GoT was sad and pathetic, but people sitting around making up a system that doesn't make sense seems par for the course for humans, heh heh. Honestly, I remember very little of GoT's last season, let alone the last episode, and I prefer it that way.

And seriously, why do people worry about what period of Euro history something is pulled from? Maybe it's none, and they just use familiar words to make it easier, heh heh. I do my best not to borrow anything except maybe familiar words to make it easier. King doesn't mean the same thing to everyone any more than president does. Definitions vary.

Definitions vary, yes... but thing is, if you have a society that is explicitly feudal, then you have to follow its logic. Westeros is shown - in the books and in the show - to be a feudal society, yet late-show Cersei acts like a 20th century tyrant with a massive standing army of full-time professionals.

 

[Mad Swede]

Definitions vary, yes... but thing is, if you have a society that is explicitly feudal, then you have to follow its logic. Westeros is shown - in the books and in the show - to be a feudal society, yet late-show Cersei acts like a 20th century tyrant with a massive standing army of full-time professionals.

Except that GRR Martin's idea of a standing army in a feudal society is not wrong. Such armies did exist in 15th century Europe, in France in the form of Charles VII Compagnies d'ordonnance (copied by Charles Duke of Burgundy), which became the Gendarmes. Other examples would be King Matthias Hunyadi's Fekete Sereg and his border garrison troops in Hungary. An even earlier 11th century example would be the English Thingmen formed by Ethelred and maintained by all the kings until Edward the Confessor. All these professional armies were funded through taxation and it was a common complaint of the nobility that the tax burden was too heavy, a view also influenced by the power such armies gave the king.

 

[pmmg]

Regardless of what happened historically, I think if I was a kingdom with nations nearby that gave me concern, I might find a way to institute a large standing army. I am not sure that needs a lot of support either. Just could be expensive, if you want to add its complexity to your tale.

 

[Aldarion]

Except that GRR Martin's idea of a standing army in a feudal society is not wrong. Such armies did exist in 15th century Europe, in France in the form of Charles VII Compagnies d'ordonnance (copied by Charles Duke of Burgundy), which became the Gendarmes. Other examples would be King Matthias Hunyadi's Fekete Sereg and his border garrison troops in Hungary. An even earlier 11th century example would be the English Thingmen formed by Ethelred and maintained by all the kings until Edward the Confessor. All these professional armies were funded through taxation and it was a common complaint of the nobility that the tax burden was too heavy, a view also influenced by the power such armies gave the king.

Except it is not Martin's idea, it was Benioff's and Weiss', and it is wrong. Yes, some feudal states did have standing armies, such as France and Hungary - no need to tell me what I already know. But these states were:
a) fairly centralized
b) still relied primarily on feudal levies

In other words, there was no way for a monarch, even one as influential as Matthias Corvinus, to pull off the kind of stuff that Cersei started regularly doing during late-run GoT. Matthias Corvinus had to negotiate with nobility over taxes - do you really think he would have gotten away with murdering a bunch of magnates and a Pope?

 

[Mad Swede]

Except it is not Martin's idea, it was Benioff's and Weiss', and it is wrong. Yes, some feudal states did have standing armies, such as France and Hungary - no need to tell me what I already know. But these states were:
a) fairly centralized
b) still relied primarily on feudal levies

In other words, there was no way for a monarch, even one as influential as Matthias Corvinus, to pull off the kind of stuff that Cersei started regularly doing during late-run GoT. Matthias Corvinus had to negotiate with nobility over taxes - do you really think he would have gotten away with murdering a bunch of magnates and a Pope?

To answer your last question first. Yes, he could have done. That was exactly what Philip IV of France did, resulting in the election of Clement V (Philip's choice) as Pope. Or look up the Stockholm Bloodbath of 1520 for a Nordic example.

It's worth pointing out here that Matthias, Charles VII, Philip IV and Richard Lionheart all relied on skilled individual administrators, in Richard's case his brother John. It was these individuals ability to raise taxes which allowed these kings to run their military campaings and centralise their realms. John in particular was a gifted administrator, and some of his innovations in governance still exist. That efficiency made John very unpopular with the nobility, but as long as Richard was alive no-one dared complain for fear of having to meet Richard on the battlefield or worse in single combat.

It's also this reliance on individuals and the vulnerability that creates which marks the difference between Pre-Modern period states and the states that developed in the Early Modern period. The Early Modern period saw the development of formal administrative structures in many countries. A classic example of this is Axel Oxenstierna's development of the modern Swedish state (including a standing army), a development which laid the foundations for Gustavus Adolphus' campaigns during the Thirty Years War and helped create Sweden's Baltic Empire.

 

[Aldarion]

To answer your last question first. Yes, he could have done. That was exactly what Philip IV of France did, resulting in the election of Clement V (Philip's choice) as Pope. Or look up the Stockholm Bloodbath of 1520 for a Nordic example.

I would note that Philip did not actually murder the pope. Yes, pope Boniface was imprisoned, and even beaten, but not killed. Also, Boniface himself had massive opposition from within the Church, and stories were spread that he had questioned immortality of the soul or even helped assassinate his predecessor. So it is not like Philip opposed the Church - rather, he exploited a split within the Church. And as a counterexample, in 1076., Henry IV was forced to grovel to Pope merely because he had been excommunicated - which resulted in most of his vassals essentially ditching him. Philip I also got excommunicated for his numerous divorces, and while his reign survived due to extensive support he enjoyed from French bishops, he had a lot of trouble, and was forced to do a public penance in 1104.

So again, Cersei could not have done what she did - which was, essentially, murder a Pope, a lot of priests, as well as members of major nobility - and expect to walk out of it with no major consequences, or even alive. Yet in the show, that is basically what happens. She had eliminated her enemies, so she suddenly faces no internal opposition - that appears to be the logic.

It's worth pointing out here that Matthias, Charles VII, Philip IV and Richard Lionheart all relied on skilled individual administrators, in Richard's case his brother John. It was these individuals ability to raise taxes which allowed these kings to run their military campaings and centralise their realms. John in particular was a gifted administrator, and some of his innovations in governance still exist. That efficiency made John very unpopular with the nobility, but as long as Richard was alive no-one dared complain for fear of having to meet Richard on the battlefield or worse in single combat.

It's also this reliance on individuals and the vulnerability that creates which marks the difference between Pre-Modern period states and the states that developed in the Early Modern period. The Early Modern period saw the development of formal administrative structures in many countries. A classic example of this is Axel Oxenstierna's development of the modern Swedish state (including a standing army), a development which laid the foundations for Gustavus Adolphus' campaigns during the Thirty Years War and helped create Sweden's Baltic Empire.

These administrators however were still part of the relatively centralized system. You can easily run a state without a system of offices: look at early expansion of Roman Republic for a good example. The question here is a balance of power, which in early modern states shifted decisively towards the central government.

 

[Mad Swede]

I would note that Philip did not actually murder the pope. Yes, pope Boniface was imprisoned, and even beaten, but not killed.

Boniface was beaten very severely by all accounts, and the severity of the beating he got is thought to have caused his death. So yes, Philip did murder him. And he got away with it.

So again, Cersei could not have done what she did - which was, essentially, murder a Pope, a lot of priests, as well as members of major nobility - and expect to walk out of it with no major consequences, or even alive. Yet in the show, that is basically what happens. She had eliminated her enemies, so she suddenly faces no internal opposition - that appears to be the logic.

Yes, she could have done. And she does end up facing the consequences, one of which is the loss of wider support which eventually loses her the war. Which in real life is exactly what happened to Christian II after the Stockholm Bloodbath - and that cost him the Union of Kalmar and ultimately left Denmark a small state at the mercy of its larger neighbours.

These administrators however were still part of the relatively centralized system. You can easily run a state without a system of offices: look at early expansion of Roman Republic for a good example. The question here is a balance of power, which in early modern states shifted decisively towards the central government.

No, they weren't. These are Pre-Modern feudal states we're talking about and the relative centralisation was due entirely to individuals. As for running a state without a system of offices, yes it can be done but as I wrote it becomes very dependent on individuals and it can quickly result in disputes and conflicts.

This is illustrated by the Roman Republic. It did have a formal system of offices, for example the magistrates, consuls, tribunes, the legislative assemblies and the senate, and these were what enabled the Republic to expand in the first place. But, this was also what led to the Roman Empire simply because the constitutional structures and offices weren't properly written down. This led to several conflicts and civil wars, partly because the republic was run on precedent and custom and partly because the system was open to manipulation by individuals like Crassus, Pompey and Julius Ceaser. This was Axel Oxenstierna's big innovation in Early Modern Sweden: a formal system and administrative structure for delegating authority, with the limits clearly described in writing.

 

[Aldarion]

Yes, she could have done. And she does end up facing the consequences, one of which is the loss of wider support which eventually loses her the war. Which in real life is exactly what happened to Christian II after the Stockholm Bloodbath - and that cost him the Union of Kalmar and ultimately left Denmark a small state at the mercy of its larger neighbours.

And Christian II is still an early modern monarch.

Yes, she could have done. And she does end up facing the consequences, one of which is the loss of wider support which eventually loses her the war. Which in real life is exactly what happened to Christian II after the Stockholm Bloodbath - and that cost him the Union of Kalmar and ultimately left Denmark a small state at the mercy of its larger neighbours.

Did it? I only recall Jaime leaving, but she still appeared to have a massive army that fought for her all the way to the end.

No, they weren't. These are Pre-Modern feudal states we're talking about and the relative centralisation was due entirely to individuals. As for running a state without a system of offices, yes it can be done but as I wrote it becomes very dependent on individuals and it can quickly result in disputes and conflicts.

This is illustrated by the Roman Republic. It did have a formal system of offices, for example the magistrates, consuls, tribunes, the legislative assemblies and the senate, and these were what enabled the Republic to expand in the first place. But, this was also what led to the Roman Empire simply because the constitutional structures and offices weren't properly written down. This led to several conflicts and civil wars, partly because the republic was run on precedent and custom and partly because the system was open to manipulation by individuals like Crassus, Pompey and Julius Ceaser. This was Axel Oxenstierna's big innovation in Early Modern Sweden: a formal system and administrative structure for delegating authority, with the limits clearly described in writing.

Mostly due to individuals, but that would have been impossible without military, administrative and economic developments. And once conditions had been created, rulers would naturally aim to centralize the state.