Aldarion
Archmage
So I just published my "Argument for Monarchy" post:
Argument for Monarchy
That in turn reminded me of arguments on "why fantasy is monarchical" and whether it makes sense, or if it is a bad thing. Now, I am not going to argue here on merits of monarchy as such - that is done in the linked post, so if you want to read my opinions on monarchy, read that. Rather, I will outline here why I believe monarchy in fantasy makes sense, and how different systems might be implemented.
* * * *
One aspect of fantasy is that it is - with some exceptions (e.g. Warhammer 40 000) - rather medieval (and even Warhammer 40 000 is better at portraying a medieval society than most of medieval fantasy). So what does this mean? There are several sociological and technological limitations of a medieval society:
Social stratification means that while most people might have been able to read and write (that is unclear), most people were not educated enough to make political decisions. And since extensive education was much more difficult to carry out, this meant that all decision-making was in the hands of a small group of people, which would almost inevitably (though by no means always) produce one individual above the rest (primus inter pares). From there, there was only a step to monarchy.
Limited administration also means that monarchy was the most logical choice. Unlike the intrusive, authoritharian and self-perpetuating administrative monster of a modern state, administration of most monarchies was rather limited (this is especially true for feudal ones, but even absolute monarchies had limited administration compared to modern-day monstrosities). This in turn meant that having a single person oversee said limited apparatus was merely good economy of resources.
Said limited administration also provides another explanation for why monarchical setup was so long dominant: it simply didn't matter as much. Most of the governance was carried out on the local level, and there one could have real diversity of political systems. Dubrovnik was an aristocratic republic even while it was still a part of monarchical Hungarian-Croatian kingdom, as were many other cities and towns. Poljica were ruled by an elected duke, and had only few serfs (there were 40 noble families, 120 serf families and 800 families of free peasants). In other words, while kingdom was, well, kingdom, actual system "on the ground" - that is, what people actually experienced - could be extremely varied. In this sense, the absolutist monarchy that was eventually overthrown by the French revolution was an aberration of Medieval government, and product of same process of political centralization which also produced modern-day democracy as well as various totalitarian regimes.
And that is another point "in favour" of monarchy. Monarch provides an easy focal point: for political system as such, for feelings of loyalty, but also for anger if things do not work. Simply said, if monarchical system does not work and monarch becomes a tyrant, you overthrow the monarch. But if modern-day republic does not work, who do you overthrow? You have two parties - both the same, a bunch of minor parties - all the same, composed of politicians - all the same. I have already written about politicial issues with such system in the linked post, but the reason I am mentioning it here is that it also leads to literary issues: it is easy to get "lost". In a monarchical system, it is easy to have a good guy, a bad guy, and a solution to the problem: remove the bad guy. This leads to comparatively streamlined narrative. But trying to write such a story in a democratic system is problematic. Thus, it is no surprise that villains in stories are generally either monarchs or represent some perversion of monarchy (as Sauron, Palpatine etc. do): it makes story easier to make, easier to follow, and villain easier to hate. Story is easier to focus, and avoids diluting.
And there are also psychological reasons behind the monarchy. Monarchy essentially duplicates family, with monarch acting as pater familias (this is seen with modern-day populist politics). Basically, king is not just a ruler, but father, the personalization of the nation. This, then, leads to idea so often seen, that "good king" will also be a good ruler and will bring about the good times for the kingdom (see: Aragorn and Return of the King in, well, RotK).
* * * *
Again, this is not about merits of monarchy vs republic vs democracy; that argument I made in the linked post. Rather, here I wanted to explain why monarchical leanings of high fantasy is not merely "follow the Lord of the Rings" effect, but actually makes historical, sociological and politological sense; as well as why - to me at least - many fantasy which tries to avoid monarchism trope feels so forced.
Argument for Monarchy
That in turn reminded me of arguments on "why fantasy is monarchical" and whether it makes sense, or if it is a bad thing. Now, I am not going to argue here on merits of monarchy as such - that is done in the linked post, so if you want to read my opinions on monarchy, read that. Rather, I will outline here why I believe monarchy in fantasy makes sense, and how different systems might be implemented.
* * * *
One aspect of fantasy is that it is - with some exceptions (e.g. Warhammer 40 000) - rather medieval (and even Warhammer 40 000 is better at portraying a medieval society than most of medieval fantasy). So what does this mean? There are several sociological and technological limitations of a medieval society:
- Slow communications
- Social stratification
- Limited administration
Social stratification means that while most people might have been able to read and write (that is unclear), most people were not educated enough to make political decisions. And since extensive education was much more difficult to carry out, this meant that all decision-making was in the hands of a small group of people, which would almost inevitably (though by no means always) produce one individual above the rest (primus inter pares). From there, there was only a step to monarchy.
Limited administration also means that monarchy was the most logical choice. Unlike the intrusive, authoritharian and self-perpetuating administrative monster of a modern state, administration of most monarchies was rather limited (this is especially true for feudal ones, but even absolute monarchies had limited administration compared to modern-day monstrosities). This in turn meant that having a single person oversee said limited apparatus was merely good economy of resources.
Said limited administration also provides another explanation for why monarchical setup was so long dominant: it simply didn't matter as much. Most of the governance was carried out on the local level, and there one could have real diversity of political systems. Dubrovnik was an aristocratic republic even while it was still a part of monarchical Hungarian-Croatian kingdom, as were many other cities and towns. Poljica were ruled by an elected duke, and had only few serfs (there were 40 noble families, 120 serf families and 800 families of free peasants). In other words, while kingdom was, well, kingdom, actual system "on the ground" - that is, what people actually experienced - could be extremely varied. In this sense, the absolutist monarchy that was eventually overthrown by the French revolution was an aberration of Medieval government, and product of same process of political centralization which also produced modern-day democracy as well as various totalitarian regimes.
And that is another point "in favour" of monarchy. Monarch provides an easy focal point: for political system as such, for feelings of loyalty, but also for anger if things do not work. Simply said, if monarchical system does not work and monarch becomes a tyrant, you overthrow the monarch. But if modern-day republic does not work, who do you overthrow? You have two parties - both the same, a bunch of minor parties - all the same, composed of politicians - all the same. I have already written about politicial issues with such system in the linked post, but the reason I am mentioning it here is that it also leads to literary issues: it is easy to get "lost". In a monarchical system, it is easy to have a good guy, a bad guy, and a solution to the problem: remove the bad guy. This leads to comparatively streamlined narrative. But trying to write such a story in a democratic system is problematic. Thus, it is no surprise that villains in stories are generally either monarchs or represent some perversion of monarchy (as Sauron, Palpatine etc. do): it makes story easier to make, easier to follow, and villain easier to hate. Story is easier to focus, and avoids diluting.
And there are also psychological reasons behind the monarchy. Monarchy essentially duplicates family, with monarch acting as pater familias (this is seen with modern-day populist politics). Basically, king is not just a ruler, but father, the personalization of the nation. This, then, leads to idea so often seen, that "good king" will also be a good ruler and will bring about the good times for the kingdom (see: Aragorn and Return of the King in, well, RotK).
* * * *
Again, this is not about merits of monarchy vs republic vs democracy; that argument I made in the linked post. Rather, here I wanted to explain why monarchical leanings of high fantasy is not merely "follow the Lord of the Rings" effect, but actually makes historical, sociological and politological sense; as well as why - to me at least - many fantasy which tries to avoid monarchism trope feels so forced.