Once more I apologise for my seemingly bar brawl-like entrance... I am often a provoking person. My provoking comments should be taken with a grain of salt and sometimes I just assume too much on people naturally doing so... I also may be a bit touchy for uncle Karl nowadays... Also going to show that all kinds of people are into Tolkien.
What comes to the type of regimes in fantasy, in this I think we are a bit too keen on following on Tokiens footsteps. Monarchy is at the level of technology involved in fantasy the most... I do not know the geopolitics term in english... It is the most able to centralize governance = most able to govern large area. Even roman senate ruled the provinces as military dictatorships. Monarchy is able to create bureaucracy by the system of personal vows of allegiance. It is the most adwanced form of governance before the invention of modern bureacracy in nineteenth century or so (code de Napoleon, I'd say)
I think in this issue history is a deeper well for fantasy to draw from, then Tolkien. There is of cource the Roman type "republic" and greek "democracy." Taking theese in use however require knowledge as they are quite different from what those terms have come to mean.
But also there are historical models often overlooked. The fantasy campaign/saga I have been preparing is set in sort of stumped up Europe-like continent somewhat akin to warhammer RPG's old world. On a central location is an "empire" whiches governance is somewhat gobetween of monarchy and clericalism. Perhaps best historical compartison would be French monarchy at the time of cardinal Richelieu or imperium at the times of charlemagne the great. Exept for the church holding much power this is closest to the classic Fantasy monarchy.
Five other "bases of power" are fashioned differently and I think it is examples such as theese that fantasy should seek from history.
1) Britain circa 200 AD - 500 AD (pre-Arthurian period) = multiple indipendent feudal kings (and their feudal earls, dukes, barons etc.) competing eachother who elect a warlord amongs themselves at times of common need. This is just one degree less centralised then monarchy as one king has not been able to demand permanent loyality of other kings.
2) Italy of renaiccance = indipendent citystates, not needing ANY joint governance as each is strong enough not to be conquerred by external enemies and their ambitions are directed against eachother and not against external conquests. Governance of each sitystate varies from roman republic to military dictatorship to rule of trade baron guild to rule of nobility council. The diffenence of governance is also a fact in making the previous degree of co-operation impossible. One should also remember the all too common mistake in the fantasy rpg's... There are no courts of law in the fantasy period, especially none like modern courts. Judgement is passed by the one who rules or his/her/their servant(s).
3) Tribal governance as per migrations periot tribes (Langobars, Huns, Goths, Vandals, etc. etc.) = without any official system the groups of men are subservient to one absolute tribal leader (the strongest). Only case by case co-operation exists between tribal chiefs. Such form of governance can only last if it is expansionist and strong in manpower.
4) Scandinavian / (irish?) system circa 200 AD - 1000AD = Local chiefs / nobles ruling their clans / lands in all issues including justice much the same as in previous but recognising the authority of a "thing". Annual or semiannual gathering/meeting of the chiefs (and commoners).
5) Finnish / (American indian?) system circa 0 - 1000 AD (somewhat based on assumption.) = Tribes led/ruled issue by issue either by a hero or an elders council and all organised into few nations by recognising authority of "käräjät", a tribal nations gathering, where each tribe is represented and justice is served by the gatherings elder council.
My two cents worth ended up being about meter long -sigh- Thats another thing that happens to me as often as me ending up provoking someone.
Janne Harju
|