Basic mistakes in worldbuilding a "feudal" monarchy

[Aldarion]

"Feudal" monarchy seems to be the most popular type of government in fantasy - to the point that other systems are often confused for it (e.g. Gondor being called feudal) - yet it is so very often done so, so badly.

So I will list some of the basic mistakes I had noticed:

• Overly powerful monarch. Absolute monarchy is product of modernity, not Middle Ages. Premodern monarchs, especially those in feudal states, were far more limited in power. You will see why below, but king couldn't just do whatever he wanted to. There were many conflicting interests he had to take into account lest he be replaced: courtly factions, magnates, minor nobility, cities, clergy and so on. In short: tyrants did not last long. And this was true for other levels as well: barring extreme circumstances, peasants didn't really feel the government the way and to the extent people today do.
• Overly powerful lord. Often, lord can be seen ordering around everybody who is below him in a feudal ladder. But in reality, "vassal of my vassal is not my vassal". If a lord wanted his vassal's vassal to do something, he had to direct his immediate vassal to give appropriate orders. If order goes King - Duke - Baron, then king cannot order a baron around; he has to order the duke to do what he wants, and then duke will order his baron(s) to do what he deems necessary to fulfill king's orders. And just as with the king, if senior did something overtly dishonorable, junior (vassal) could simply go looking for a new master.
• Only one type of monarchy. Feudal monarchies were not simply a feudal monarchy and that's it. In fact, there is no "feudal monarchy" as a type. Even the "monarchy" part of feudal monarchy could vary - but more on that later. And when it comes to the rest of it... oh boy. You could have many different strata:
  • Noble society. Basically your stereotypical fantasy, where most of the political power is held by nobility, and specifically large magnates.
  • Territorial society. This is the system Hungary had until the Mongol invasion of 1241-2 and subsequent reforms by Bela IV. There was little nobility, and definitely not a class of landed magnates. Kingdom was instead organized into counties: small territories centered around a fortified city or a castle ("fortified" in this context mostly meaning wooden pallisade). Each county was ruled by a royal appointee and provided a number of men according to its size. Middle Byzantine Empire was also similar, but far more centralized.
  • Mixed society. This was in fact most common feudal system, with political power being shared between the king, nobility and territorial units. See below for details.
• Only hereditary succession + single monarch. Often monarchy is seen as hereditary, with crown passing from father to son by default. But that was only one type of succession. Some feudal monarchies were hereditary, others were elective. Elective monarchies however also often included hereditary principle, making it very likely that crown will pass from father to son - but that was by no means guaranteed. For example, Kingdom of Hungary had several dynasties - but John Corvinus was passed over when it came to succession, with Vladislaus Jagiellon being elected king. While Byzantine Empire empire is technically not a feudal monarchy, it is an illustrative example of how a non-hereditary or else a mixed succession might work. In Byzantine Empire, hereditary principle was often followed in practice yet was never formally recognized. What this meant is that Emperors tried to ensure smooth succession by declaring their children co-emperors while they themselves still ruled. In some cases, father died while son was still underaged, and a powerful general would declare himself an Emperor - while still leaving the kid his own imperial title. For example, Basil II was son of Romanos II - who himself was crowned in 963 as co-emperor of Constantine II. Basil II was crowned Romanos II's co-emperor in 960, when Basil II himself was only two years old. Romanos II died in 963, and was succeeded as a (senior) emperor by Nikephoros II (963 - 969) and John I (969 - 976). Only in 976 did Basil II assume assume rule of the Empire - with his brother as co-emperor, as Constantine VIII had been crowned in 963 as well. So between 963 and 976, Byzantine Empire had had three emperors at the same time.

 

[Aldarion]

• Too simple political system. George Martin's Westeros is guilty of this. There are Lords Paramount, higher lords, lower lords, knights and peasants. And that's it. In reality, however, feudalism was complex. But most fantasy states fail at appreciating this, and instead limit the political system only to nobility. Ironically, Warhammer 40ks Imperium of Man is a far better example of feudalism than most fantasy feudal kingdoms. Real feudalism had as follows:
  • Royalty. One could technically consider them part of nobility, but royalty ruled the kingdom. But royal family ruling the kingdom was not the limit of royal presence. Royal siblings, cousins and others without royal title but ties to the royal house still had important part to play.
  • Magnates. Also called high nobility, these were the major landowners. They wielded extensive power as they had a lot of wealth individually, but nevertheless they could be resisted by minor nobility. But keep in mind that there was no "class consciousness" back in the day. If magnates acted as a group, that was because all of theirs' interests were threatened as individuals, not out of a sense of class loyalty or whatever.
  • Minor nobility. Less individually powerful than magnates but far more numerous. Typically, interests of magnates and minor nobility would clash - but see above. Kings often enlisted help of minor nobility against the magnates.
  • Dispossessed or impoverished nobility. These were technically peasants - yet because they were nobility, they also had legal privileges of nobility.
  • Cities and towns. Basically goes the same as with the minor nobility: they would often ally with king to protect themselves from the magnates, but sometimes would do the reverse as well. Or ally with each other. And so on.
  • Other territorial units. Sometimes a "city" was not in fact a city but simply a collection of villages which had status of a city for political purposes (see Sparta for a non-medieval example). Then an alliance of cities or towns could act as a single territorial unit. Sometimes such alliances existed on top of other territorial divisions: see an example of Hanseatic League, which spanned several states of the Holy Roman Empire.
  • Guilds. Guilds could be major players in politics, especially local politics, since cities depended a lot on their guilds. And guild militias were crucial in defense of a city or a town as well.
  • Clergy.
  • Monastic orders.
  • A lot of other more minor stuff I am probably forgetting here.
• Too unified political system.All too often, stories will fail to appreciate internal divisions and conflicts of interests within the feudal monarchy. But these were all-pervasive, and could be roughly categorized as follows:
  • Intra-class conflicts: conflicts between individual members of a group (e.g. two magnates or two cities going at each other).
  • Inter-class conflicts: e.g. magnate attempting to take over an independent city or something.
  • Complex conflicts: combination of the above.
  • In short, everybody fought everybody else at some point, and talking about "class consciousness" of Marxian type is just dumb for a medieval society, unless it is being used for purely illustrative purposes.
• Insufficient local variation. This is basically an extension of the "too simple political system", but oftentimes, even when some diversity in political system is shown, local variation is insufficient. This is the case where all cities are ruled over by lords (one example is Empire in Paolini's Inheritance Cycle). So you have Lord Alpher in city A, Lord Bethe in city B, Lord Gamow in city C, Lord Dante in city D, and so on until you run out of the cities. But in reality, a city could be a direct democracy, noble republic, elective republic, elective monarchy, hereditary monarchy, and so on. Further, it was entirely possible for there to be a different number of "levels" in different places. For example, a city in Kingdom of Croatia during feudalism (so this is a personal union with Hungary) could be subject directly to the King and the Viceroy (e.g. Free Royal cities), to a feudal lord, to a county, or to an actual government / state that was nevertheless part of the Kingdom of Croatia. For example, village of Dubrava was part of a canton of Srednja Poljica, which was one of three cantons that made up Republic of Poljica. Republic was ruled by nobility and an elected duke, yet Republic itself was part of Kingdom of Croatia.
• Countries and nations. While people back in Middle Ages did recognize cultural, ethnic and tribal belonging, it didn't carry all that much weight politically speaking. To use my own country as an example: "Croatia" used to be a name of littoral Croatia, which was later termed "Dalmatia". Pannonian Croatia was called Pannonia or later Slavonia. And they used to be two different countries (duchies)... and then there was also Red Croatia which was a... mess. And they were frequently at war with each other. Pannonia only became part of Croatia after Hungarians conquered it, and then Tomislav in turn conquered what Hungarians had conquered. But even then, "nationalism" wasn't a thing. Much later, "Slavonia" was created when Hungarians conquered Pannonian parts of Croatia, before ultimately conquering Croatia proper as well. So now we again had two Croatian kingdoms. Bosnia was created when a king of Hungary wanted to give some territory to his son, and so there were three Croatian kingdoms. And nobody cared. Ethnicity mattered occasionally... but only occasionally, such as when Kings of Bosnia wanted to push claims onto rest of Croatian lands. But generally, nationalism simply wasn't a thing. To go to Western Europe, King of England, for centuries, also controlled areas of western France - and again, nobody cared, except when it caused a conflict of jurisdiction (as it made King of England a vassal of King of France, technically speaking).

And all of this varied with time and place, making it impossible to create a template called "feudal monarchy". The only common characteristic was devolvation of power to the local level, but even that varied in scope and magnitude from place to place and time to time.

 

[Gurkhal]

Excellent posts about feudalism.

One thing of a more practical nature I would mention is that while the reality of feudal Europe is very nuanced and fascinating, we shouldn't get trapped in endless world building. GRRM's Westeros is not a very realistic depiction of a feudal realm but it is wonderful at serving its purpose for a story about the nobility fighting to put their candidate on the throne.

Adding free cities, city republics, monastic domains, more church politics and so on would make it more realistic BUT its unclear if it would add to a better story when the story is primary, or so it seems to me, about the nobility and more precise about the warrior nobility.

 

[ThinkerX]

Well, lessee here...

The Solarian Empire, the principal nation of my principal world, was envisioned as a sort of latter-day Roman Empire that partially collapsed and was nailed back together by a Charlemagne-type figure, partly through marriage and partly through conquest.

Rulership, prosperity, and education levels of the various imperial provinces vary quite a bit - Equitant and Carbone boast educated populaces, and elected officials, and are quite prosperous. Niteroi, though, is basically a giant slave-worked plantation. Sancti Isle and a couple of other places are church-run fiefs. Corber Port, the Empire's largest city and commercial center, is a sort of oligarchy with local representation. Marfak and Tunca are populated by the descendants of the nomads who almost overwhelmed the empire and conquered a large swath of land. The Avar provinces...well, the Avar were another collection of barbarian invaders who claimed most of the Western empire. That area is almost a generic feudal realm. There are also assorted provinces under direct imperial control, usually featuring lots of soldiers who get offered land for military service.

Social Order? The emperor is at the top of the heap. He, or rarely she, comes from the most powerful families. Usually, hereditary, but there are legal mechanisms that can depose an existing dynasty or empower a new emperor.

Below these exalted families are the aristocratic or senatorial classes, the people who own most of everything. Advancement into this group is possible, though it takes either a fantastically fortunate marriage or a giant pile of cash. Technically, the Grand Senate can override the emperor, though this is rare. They do control much of the imperial budget.

Commoners, also called citizens, are a fast-growing segment of the populace, owing mostly to a broke emperor 'rewarding' *all* of his troop's land and citizenship in the wake of a war that saw about one person in fifty in military service. Actual wealth varies from poverty level to stinking rich. Province depending, some end up serving in local office, joining the civil service, or getting positions as flunkies to the aristocrats.

Then we have the serfs or plebes - mostly peasant farmers or laborers on giant estates. One notch above slaves. Short of turning rogue, their only way out is military service, civil service, or joining the church.

Technology varies widely within the empire - Carbone and Equitant are at a highly uneven 19th-century level of tech, with things like crude cameras, steam engines, printing presses, and hot air balloons. Signal towers invented by Equitant span the whole empire. Other provinces...well such things might as well be magic. The great families went to substantial effort to keep technology confined and mostly succeeded for several centuries.

 

[Finchbearer]

I have a feudal inspired system, but no monarchy, just a confederation of provinces each with a ruling Lord and culture of land owning nobles who practice serfdom. It’s not a perfect system because there are obvious inequalities, but I wanted to explore social divides and inequality in my writing.

 

[Aldarion]

I have a feudal inspired system, but no monarchy, just a confederation of provinces each with a ruling Lord and culture of land owning nobles who practice serfdom. It’s not a perfect system because there are obvious inequalities, but I wanted to explore social divides and inequality in my writing.

Perfect system for storytelling purposes is very different from perfect system to live in (not to mention that "perfect system" is really impossible because humans aren't perfect).

Gene Roddenberry tried to create a "perfect system to live in" in The Next Generation, and... turned out, it was terrible for storytelling simply because only possible conflict was one with external factors, and so there were limited opportunities for telling stories.

Excellent posts about feudalism.

One thing of a more practical nature I would mention is that while the reality of feudal Europe is very nuanced and fascinating, we shouldn't get trapped in endless world building. GRRM's Westeros is not a very realistic depiction of a feudal realm but it is wonderful at serving its purpose for a story about the nobility fighting to put their candidate on the throne.

Adding free cities, city republics, monastic domains, more church politics and so on would make it more realistic BUT its unclear if it would add to a better story when the story is primary, or so it seems to me, about the nobility and more precise about the warrior nobility.

I personally believe it would, but that is just me.

 

[Finchbearer]

Perfect system for storytelling purposes is very different from perfect system to live in (not to mention that "perfect system" is really impossible because humans aren't perfect).

I agree. It was probably the wrong word to use…certainly a perfect world does not exist, not even in fiction however utopian you make it. I probably wanted to convey more about the imperfection of the feudal system inspiring my writing in that the inequalities give me plenty of creative scope.

 

[pmmg]

"Feudal" monarchy seems to be the most popular type of government in fantasy - to the point that other systems are often confused for it (e.g. Gondor being called feudal) - yet it is so very often done so, so badly.

This may be true, but I feel this assertion is lacking a consideration that capturing the feudal system accurately was ever the goal. Many stories may need a backdrop of something to make the story work, but are not really focused on the system of governance as an important aspect of their story.

For many tales, its just enough that there is a king, and some lords, but since the story is not really about them, and how they use or maintain power, its just kind of off in a different direction to make sure all those I's are dotted and T's crossed there as well. I dont really care how Gondor was governed. Just that guy on top was an obstacle to the story.

When the story is about the complexities of managing in a feudal structure, I might prefer more accuracy, but... as with anything big and multifaceted, I am sure some of it would be left out there as well.

 

[Queshire]

Well yeah, but if you want to go more into depth of feudalism then it's better to have a thread like this than not.

 

[Aldarion]

This may be true, but I feel this assertion is lacking a consideration that capturing the feudal system accurately was ever the goal. Many stories may need a backdrop of something to make the story work, but are not really focused on the system of governance as an important aspect of their story.

For many tales, its just enough that there is a king, and some lords, but since the story is not really about them, and how they use or maintain power, its just kind of off in a different direction to make sure all those I's are dotted and T's crossed there as well. I dont really care how Gondor was governed. Just that guy on top was an obstacle to the story.

When the story is about the complexities of managing in a feudal structure, I might prefer more accuracy, but... as with anything big and multifaceted, I am sure some of it would be left out there as well.

While this is correct to an extent, I do believe that many stories would be significantly improved by having a backdrop of realistic system of governance, even when government is mostly out of focus.

Hidden factors can add significant depth to the world - see Tolkien's Middle Earth. So you don't need details, but it is still better to have the basics straight.

Major issue is really that authors who do make an effort to try and portray "realistic" medieval politics get so much wrong. Look at Martin:

What was Aragorn's Tax Policy? - Marginal REVOLUTION

Excellent interview with George R. R. Martin at Rolling Stone: How did you come up with the Wall? The Wall predates anything else. I can trace back the inspiration for that to 1981. I was in England visiting a friend, and as we approached the border of England and Scotland, we stopped to see...

marginalrevolution.com

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

Shallow political landscape can work for a mythological fantasy setting where politics are simply out of focus. It works for Tolkien, because Lord of the Rings is, in the end, a theological fairy tale, a mythical prehistory of the modern world. It is far more of an Illiad than it is History of Byzantium. But with so much fantasy today apparently aiming for realism, it would do well for writers to understand what is hidden behind the facade of politics, even if they will never include majority of the stuff into the story itself.

I do have to note here however: Tolkien may not provide detailed description about how governance of Gondor or of Rohan works. But the fact that the few details he does provide are taken from history, and from societies that roughly correspond to Gondor and Rohan*, means that reader - if he is interested - can simply study some history and fill in the missing details. And it works. By contrast, Martin has provided far more detailed exploration of political systems in Westeros and Essos, yet precisely because of this, I find political systems in ASoIaF far less believable: he has simply gotten a lot of it wrong, and because we see things in such a detail, reader does not have the freedom of imagination that Tolkien leaves, freedom which would allow reader to fill in the blanks with something that makes sense.

* Gondor is largely based around Byzantine Empire, politically and militarily, while Rohan is essentially Anglo-Saxon England.

 

[_Michael_]

Thank you for this thread. Love this information. I have so many medieval reference books I bought from Edward R Hamilton to study up on that very thing. I love having the highly detailed backdrop of government in stories, even if it's only ever in the background because those political pressures have very real effects on people's behavior. Bureaucracies tend to always grow in one direction--outward--and those unelected bureaucrats tend to become petty tyrants when left to their own devices.

Also, wasn't there a lot of holidays in medieval times? It was practically a party or festival every weekend. And in war times, horseflesh was very rare as most of it (even broke-back nags) would be scooped up and pressed into service by knights wearing whatever armor they could afford.

 

[Aldarion]

Also, wasn't there a lot of holidays in medieval times? It was practically a party or festival every weekend. And in war times, horseflesh was very rare as most of it (even broke-back nags) would be scooped up and pressed into service by knights wearing whatever armor they could afford.

Knights were professional soldiers and would have proper war horses which were owned by themselves or by their lord. Nags were used largely by mounted infantry - that is, people who rode horses but fought on foot - and for baggage train.

 

[_Michael_]

During war-times, that would change and horseflesh would be hard to come by for any purpose. The Crusades saw most of France and Spain stripped of even broke-down sway-back nags. Unlike the fantasy novels, being a knight was hard, dirty work that often involved learning to repair your own armor and tabard and barding for your horse. It was definitely not the pathway to fortune and glory. Very few ever became a Roland or Lancelot.

 

[Aldarion]

The Crusades saw most of France and Spain stripped of even broke-down sway-back nags.

Question there is for what purpose. Knight's fee after all was intended to support a mounted warrior, and knights were in fact de-facto professional soldiers. That is why they were so rare (IIRC, only 10% of Crusaders were cavalry, and only a fraction of those were knights). So I'd find it weird if knights, as a rule, had to ride nags.

More likely explanation I think would be for baggage train, where quality of horse didn't matter as much, and which would contain vast majority of army's equines in any case.

 

[_Michael_]

I think you’re right. It was in a medieval warfare sourcebook that was discussing logistics and gave a picture of what the true breadth of the crusades were (all two or three major battles lol) in terms of personnel. One thing it mentioned was just how expensive armor truly was. You could practically buy entire hamlets for the cost of a suit of plate armor. Another thing it discussed was the quality of armor and how a lot of knights couldn’t afford their own sets of armor to be custom made so they’d repurpose anything they found on the Battlefield and have it fitted to them when possible. If your horse died, you were really up the creek without a paddle.

I’m going to have to have to reread it again because it showed actual troop movements and battles, which was endlessly interesting in a Battlefield: Britain sort of way.

I’ll admit, I’m always a little disappointed when I see shows like Walking Dead and it’s like everyone forgot about basic siege warfare and how to build a barbican. Let them make it through the first gate, and then close it behind them and rain death from above. Take a page from the Prince of Orange and Coevorden and build it right.

 

[Finchbearer]

In walking dead you just have like ordinary citizens, so I’m not sure you could expect them to know about medieval siege tactics

 

[BrittleBones]

In walking dead you just have like ordinary citizens, so I’m not sure you could expect them to know about medieval siege tactics

But the medieval fantasy writers will.

Perhaps we'd stand the best chance in a zombie apocalypse

 

[Ban]

Take a page from the Prince of Orange and Coevorden and build it right.

In Dutch history we simply call him Prince Maurice (Prins Maurits). Easy to distinguish from the long lineage of Kings and Stadtholders named Willem.

 

[_Michael_]

Well, even in the Walking Dead, you still had some educated people walking around and libraries are still standing. I get most people wouldn't necessarily know about the finer details of siege warfare, but building a barbican gatehouse with murderholes is 101. Building it round or with bastion towers at each corner to rain fire down on zed near the curtain walls is basic, too.

Then again, I'm speaking from a fantasy writer's perspective. I think we writers really would stand the best chance...? lol We haven't forgotten the face of our fathers...our fathers of science fiction and fantasy, that is. lol

 

[Finchbearer]

It would go something like: ‘we have an historian in the group’ who would be the underdog, and then they would be able to direct the others on how to recreate any number of unfathomable historical tactics, and it would make for a great fictional part of the plot.

But you also have to consider that doing anything like that would take planning and provisions, which in a zombie post apocalyptic shitstorm would be far easier said than done. Especially if the zombies can run.