Government

[Johnny Cosmo]

Ah, I thought you meant that you had detailed the government for most of them, but it doesn't seem to strange now.

 

[Leuco]

Leuco - that sound's very interesting. At the moment I'm trying to work in a parallel to the Christianisation of the Germanic peoples by a newly converted collection of co-operating recently-converted theocratic city-states that are rivals to my norse-inspired Kingdom of Men. it's not that similar other than using real world tension to fill out a backstory. Mine being a very old real world tension though, your's seems more striking since it's more relevant.
Care to expand?

When I think about the northern Holy Roman Empire, I never really think much about how they became the Holy part. From the bits I've read in school, it just seems like Constantine becomes Christian, and then all of sudden everyone in Europe converts too. Kind of a mysterious history-- at least to me anyway. Is that why you picked it? I can tell there's a lot of cultural conflict in your project. From which group does your main character belong? Norseman? Christian? Not yet Christian?

In my books, when the King dies, his Guardians assume control of the realm. They've divided the land into quarters and two of the kingdoms end up going to war. These two rulers are supposed to represent the far left and far right. I tried to make them both corrupt. Think sort of Mussolini (right) versus sort of Stalin (left). I won't go so far as to say it's a true allegory, but there's certainly A LOT of symbolism that I hope adds something different to my work. If you can stomach young adult fiction, you should check it out. 40% of it is free on smashwords, hopefully soon on amazon too.

By the way, as much as I LOVE to talk about my book, which I clearly do (I mean, who doesn't?), I'm trying not to get too political. Everyone here is so friendly, and I'd like to do my part to help keep it that way.

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

Whilst Christianisation would have been easier at the heart of the Empire, it would have been considerable slower with the Germanic and Celtic tribes. I guess that it managed to eventually become so popular even with those, is that it offered a better version of the afterlife - a more accessible one that didn't require courage, bravery and skill - just faith.

My group's are not set on Earth, they're parallels - but for lack of better terms, the Kingdom of Men would mostly identify as Norse, but the King-to-be converts to the 'Christianity' of my world, declaring it the official religion. He disapproves of the head of the largest city-state adopting the title of the 'Holy King' to unite the other city-states militarily - and so he plans to go to war, removing the threat, and effectively claiming the title for himself.

Sounds interesting. And you're right; there's not many things that spark heated debate quite like politics and religion - but as long as we keep it civil, I don't think anybody will take offence. My worlds political and religious parallels are not used as a vessel for my own views at all, it's just to give the backstory a bit of tension - and to draw from events from history.

Have you got a link to your stuff on smashwords?

 

[Ravana]

When I think about the northern Holy Roman Empire, I never really think much about how they became the Holy part. From the bits I've read in school, it just seems like Constantine becomes Christian, and then all of sudden everyone in Europe converts too.

Well, when the person in question rules all of Europe, it isn't quite as puzzling.…

The HRE was, as many observers have stated, neither "Holy" nor "Roman"–and was barely an "Empire." The name was primarily a political contrivance: the Carolingian kings wanted to claim to be the "legitimate successors" of the old Roman Empire, so they claimed the title and got the pope to confirm it. As far as I know, they never actually controlled Rome itself, apart from a couple times they overran it in wars, when one emperor or another got frustrated at having his divine mandate obstructed by the Vicar of God. (The "Holy" part wasn't even tacked on to the name until the 12th Century, by the way.) Keep in mind that during this time, the Byzantine emperors were also claiming to be "Emperor of Rome"–though they hadn't controlled Rome in even longer–so the westerners felt the need to dispute the claim. Shortly after the "empire" was created, the French portions dropped off, leaving mainly the Germanic lands and northern Italy as the "empire"–which got periodically subtracted from in the west and south (the HRE's control over its Italian "possessions" was rarely more than nominal in any event), while expanding in the east into Hungary and the western edges of the Slavic lands. Essentially, when someone refers to the HRE, they mean Germany, along with whatever bordering regions the emperor happened to hold that year.

That's geography. What makes the HRE interesting in the present context is that it's the foremost example of just how convoluted and buggered up the internal politics of a realm can be (it wasn't until 1495 that the empire outlawed the ancient custom of feuding among its subordinate nobles, for instance… and that didn't have much of an effect), as well as the prime example of how, in a pre-technological setting, the more you own, the less control you have… to the point where Charles V (HRE)/I (Spain) "ruled" all of central and western Europe except France–he held Spain and southern Italy courtesy of inheritance, in addition to being crowned HRE–and was all but powerless to "control" any of it.

To get some sense of how mind-bogglingly intricate the HRE got, check out:
List of states in the Holy Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
…if you make it past the intro, where it notes: "In the 18th century the Holy Roman Empire consisted of over 1,800 separate immediate territories governed by distinct authorities." "Immediate" means there is nothing (no "mediate" authority) standing between them and the emperor. Almost two… thousand… independent… political entities. Yeah. Govern that.

It wasn't always quite that fragmented: that represents the peak. Normally it was no more [sic] than a few hundred immediate territories.… (And people think what I'm doing in Machiavel is complex.… )

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

And Christianisation of Germanic tribes started before the 'Holy Roman Empire', I think.

 

[Ravana]

And Christianisation of Germanic tribes started before the 'Holy Roman Empire', I think.

Considerably before. The entire region was fully Christianized (barring perhaps some local survivals) by the time the empire was established… in fact, its eastern border largely represented the extent of the area that had been, as far as continental Europe was concerned, though Christianity continued to spread rapidly eastward thereafter, so the "border" wasn't a border for long.

 

[Leuco]

Thanks for the history lesson!

Sounds like you have a good setting for a book, Johnny. I look forward to checking it out.

Anyway, here's a link for the free download at smashwords. I hope you like it.

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

Thanks, I'll have a look when I have some free time. I was wondering if anybody had any information on the extent of co-operation between the ancient Greek city-states? I know they often warred with each other, but I'm sure they worked together too. It's hard to find information online that discusses relationships other than conflicts.

And when they did work together, who would 'head' their partnerships?

 

[Kevlar]

As far as I know they made loose alliances when it suited both parties. Alternately, those two city-states could be at war a few years later. Don't quote me on that though, I haven't actively studied the subject.

But consider kings like Agamemnon, the King of Kings. According to Homer, he conquered pretty much all of Greece, starting out as king of Mycene. Not that he directly governed them all, as far as I could gather from the various versions of the story I've read he basically just conquered them to use them for military purposes. Technically he was their overlord, but they would still be kings.

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

Well I know they co-operated in the Persian wars... and have heard Spartans led multiple Greek armies. Then not too long after Athens and Sparta had a rivalry.

I've also just read something I sort of already knew, that Athens and Sparta each formed alliances with multiple Greek city-states, called the Dorian League and the Pelopannesian League. I'm still not sure how these leagues were governed though, and I'm not sure where the boundary between city-state and a unified 'nation' starts.

 

[Ravana]

Actually, the Greek states united against Troy courtesy of a deal that prevented a war over Helen among those princes wanting to marry her; I'm not sure how Agamemnon came to lead them (they elected him, I think), but it wasn't because he ruled them.

More historically: yes, the Greek states were usually only united in the fact of an external threat–and even then, not all of the states, and as far as I know the Persians were the only such threat that managed to get most of them on the same page. Otherwise, it was an ever-shifting series of alliances of convenience.

The boundary between city-state and nation varies with time (as well as with the definition of "nation")… but, hopefully without sounding too flip about it, that "boundary" was probably about a day's ride from the city. In more technical terms, it would be whether or not the city, and its immediately surrounding environs, answered to a higher political power–or at least whether or not the city's autonomy was seriously affected by such control as that power did or could exercise: as mentioned above, most of the "city-states" of Renaissance Italy were at least nominally part of the HRE or some other kingdom most of the time. Throughout most of the history of Ancient Greece, by contrast, the cities would often be genuinely independent of one another (or anyone else), and where they weren't it was often a very temporary condition.

 

[Kevlar]

I might have to try and find a proper copy of the Illiad. I've read a couple that said Agamemnon ruled them. I didn't question it because it fit, especially with Odysseus not wanting to go. I'd think a free king would just say no, rather than pretend to be crazy.

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

I was under the impression that 'city-state' implied that they were completely independent, in terms of leadership. Of course, it makes sense to elect Agamemnon or the Spartans to lead armies, and of course they interacted, but about those italian city-states (of which I know next to nothing), do they really count as city-states?

 

[Ravana]

The Italian city-states were all effectively independent, even if they theoretically had some other monarch over them: they conducted their internal affairs as they liked, conducted their own foreign relations, and rarely if ever paid taxes to higher authorities. (Most of the northern ones were nominally part of the HRE through much of this period; to give some idea of how much control the emperor actually had over them, look at the history of how many times the empire's (other) forces invaded them to force compliance… or at least tried to, since the empire often lost.)

•

The reason Odysseus tried to get out of going, rather than simply refusing to, was because he was committed to go, courtesy of that same deal about Helen: all the Greek princes who were her suitors were required to swear an oath to defend the eventual husband against any threat—the idea being to neutralize the possibility of those princes fighting over her. The wedding-winner, Menelaus of Sparta, also happened to be Agamemnon of Mycenae's brother (who had not been a suitor, by the way); when Helen was abducted, Agamemnon stuck by his kin, reminded everybody of their oaths, and dragged them, many reluctantly, off across the sea. (Which may explain why he was "leader"—as well as accounting for all the times some hero or contingent refused to fight, even after they were all there… not a likely occurrence, if he was their monarch.) So technically Odysseus wasn't "free": he was king over his lousy little rock (and it was, according to the descriptions), but he had a prior obligation. One that was even his own fault: he was the one who came up with the oath idea in the first place. So much for "clever." I'd have to dig up an Iliad to see what it said about "ruling" or not; since its narrative doesn't begin until the final year of the war, though, it might not be completely clear on the issue anyway. (Nor, of course, does it necessarily represent any historical reality, no matter what it says.)

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

I like the sound of the italian city-states, as a basis for one of my governments, so I'll do a little more reading on them.

 

[SeverinR]

In my books,
I try to avoid getting into national or international politics.
There is a king,
Dukedoms control areas,
Barons have land further broken down

So far I deal with three nations,
the main country with a king that isn't a big part of the story.
The enemy of the main country, the evil nation looking to expand or conquer other lands. Tyrant controlled.
Best land is the kings, next his oldest son, believe there will be a daughter too, dukes and barons are given land to care for as long as the king gets his taxes.
There is a sea between the main and this tyrantical nation. (east of main country)
the neutril nation to the north, have not considered this nations goverment, mostly just a border to the main country.

The highest rank my characters have faced is a lower Duke and Duchess. Barons are more common.

 

[Kennith E Perry]

In the novel I am writing, the government starts at with the Queen (the King was assassinated) but she is advised by a counsel of representatives that are made up of guild masters and speakers appointed by the Lords of the land. I'm not sure I'm explaining it right. I haven't nailed it all down yet.

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

Mine is still taking form. I've spent more time on it than I thought I would, but I think it'll be worth it.