Egypt actually had a form of government rarely portrayed in fantasy stories, a true honest to god State run economy managed by bureaucrats in the name of the Pharoah, enabled by the need for a strict management of the Nile river to prevent catastrophic flooding, if you put that in most fantasy stories then people would just think it’s some stupid allegory for communism or somesuch.
The Inkas were organized like that, too, and the mightiest Empire in the Americas before the Europeans arrived. A well run centralized Economy is actually very good.
beurocracies aren't unheard of i.e. china, egypt the inca's, modern china etc. the problem is they rely on an already centralised system (both egypt and china were on rivers) and so don't appear much in typical european history.
That's called a Palace Economy, and it wasn't uncommon at all during the bronze age. Central states, which mostly formed around river valleys and irrigation systems. Anything utilizing a palace economy is usually called an allegory for communism because 20th century communists utilized Command Economies to, as communist thought believed at the time, bridge the gap between feudalism and socialism proper, and they are a slightly more decentralized version of Palace Economy.
Good to remember how government is linked to economics, war, population size, etc. You can't have hunter-gatherer tribes with a complex representative democracy and a standing army (or at least, it'd be hard to explain that!) for example.
Representative democracy is plausible there I think with elected chiefs and tribal assemblies when several related tribes meet. But yeah, a standing army tends to be something that was done by either settled populations of farmers etc or by nomadic herders, not hunter gatherers.
@@Luredreier yeah the elected chiefs is a great idea. also, hunter gatherers could have a safe haven where they stay in seasons where hunting doesn't work out, and in those places they could probably have a kind of council.
@@장경철-q7f most native american tribes seemed to work with elected chiefs. Although there was a bit of heretical mixed in, it did seem to come down to the tribes sporting that individual. That individual might just happen to be the last chiefs son, but could be an outsider who had proven himself to the tribe.
1:00 it kinda was uncommon in real history though. While absolute monarchy was, on paper, the system of a lot of countries, it has never really been the system.Kings are constrained by their nobles and don't have much direct power. They usually had no standing army and limited tax bases, so most power derived from the nobles or bureaucrats, so they had to give those guys what they wanted or they'd lose what power they seemed to have. When there was a standing army, that usually became a power in itself.
yeah, there were few true absolute monarchies in history, often the kings were at the mercy of their nobility and if most or all of them turned on the king, he would certainly be overthrown.
No man rules alone, after all. Even at the time of the French Revolution, the king wasn't absolute no matter how many people have tried to paint him as such. One of the big reasons why the revolutionaries were able to get organised was because the government was bankrupt and the king needed to reform the tax system, but he couldn't do that without calling a huge council made up of representatives from all three classes: nobles, clergy, and commoners (although the "commoners" that came were mostly wealthy merchants, not working-class people).
Absolutism wasnt a common thing in middle ages. The King's power was very diminished and shared with nobles and land owners or practically everyone who can raise some levy xd. It became much more relevant during modern ages. Probably France was the most representative example but there are few more. it was kinda hard to be in Europe in that moment and not being Absolutist... ask Polish or Dutch.
government, in any form, is ultimately power. when worldbuilding, I would consider how that power can/is exercised and projected, and then from that decide the system of government.
@@commander31able60 I suppose a good example of this mentality of world building can be found in Mad Max: Fury Road, where the big bad keeps control of the people by controlling the water supply.
Feste the Phule The picture the journalists took of the man blocking Tanks was just the military offering the man a ride because his groceries were too heavy
@@rvc7468, how do you know that? Also, isn't there footage somewhere of when the tank turned to go around the guy, and he stepped in front of the tank again. How the hell does that make sense with what you're claiming?
I wish to point out that the Hunger Games actually had a loyalist faction, District 2. It was split between loyalists and revolutionaries. The more I look back at the Hunger Games, the more I can appreciate how much actual thought was put into it. The revolution was implied to have factionalism and was brutal at times. It as the most realistic depiction of politics in a YA dystopia and it's nuance was lost on many of its imitators. (Also I may be remembering this wrong but I'm fairly certain the bombing of the children at the end was to draw a complete end to the violence, including any possible dissent from other factions. I may have just made that up though)
A little addition about statelessness: Often geography shapes and limits states. When building statists and stateless societies, think about why there is a state, and there is not. Governments exist because they are able to force people and collect taxes in some ways. Therefore, there will be less government in hard-to-reach areas like mountains and jungles, or just lands too far from centres of power. Think of Zomia: no access to taxpayers - no taxes. “Taxes ate the valleys, honor ate the hills” - Afghan proverb Also, some living practices would make in harder for government to exist. It is easy to tax peasant, who lives in one place and grows one type of grain which is harvested once a year at the same time. But how would you calculate taxes for person who grows five types of potatoes, do fishing and gathering in the woods? How would you find nomad to tax them? How would you control the population of mountainous valley where people speak 20 different languages (and do not have writing system for any of these 20)? It would be nice to take all these methods and variations of “the art of not being governed” into consideration when you do worldbuilding stuff
Or what happened even in remote areas of Europe even only a couple hundred years ago, where as soon as people saw someone approaching the village who didn't look like he was from the area, everybody just ran off. A tax collector can't collect taxes if all the villagers just run off to the woods and wait until he gets bored and leaves.
@@GrrrIamMad Also this generaliatically explains the existence of small enclaves in Europe like Monaco, Andorra, Luxemburg or Liechtenstein- ruling them from a large nationstate that would love to annex them out of a simple reason of state "conquest for the nation" mentality just does not happen- sometimes a place is to complicated to be annexed, where the costs of raising taxes outweigh the taxes, and therefore left alone.
To tax through 20 different languages, I'd make a basic logography which can be used in every language and use that to tax, once I establish one connection to teach it one time
It's also important to remember that even the most powerful, monolithic monarch or dictator had people to answer to. They all had some group (nobles, religious leaders, generals, oligarchs, etc) who could remove them if they pushed too far. Even if no single member of that group was as powerful as the ruler, he/she still needed to keep some of the on his/her side to rule effectively. The only way around this is via magic/futuristic technology that can allow the leader to rule without any need for help. Also hereditary succession isn't out of the question in modern settings, just look at North Korea.
@@bencox3641 They don't SAY it's hereditary, but it basically is. The people of N. Korea have been ruled by the Kim family since N. Korea became a country. Meanwhile, the Bushes have been influential, but 12 years of Bush surrounded by decades of not-bush, isn't the same as 70 years of Kim.
@@bencox3641 Calling the country a republic and saying the people voted doesn't make it true. N. Korea is an authoritarian dictatorship whether you want to admit it or not.
@@bencox3641 Yes there is proof of "elections". Elections where there is only one candidate, chosen by the government. Elections where the only option for dissent is to cross out the candidates name in full view of government monitors. Being anti-American doesn't automatically make you evil, but it also doesn't automatically make you good.
@@bencox3641 Then how do elections work in N. Korea? Where is your proof? Do you live in N. Korea? Neither do I, so yes, I have to learn about it from other people. That's why I check multiple sources, including ones from outside the US. So, unless you have some evidence other than, "America is EVIL!!", I'm done with this conversation.
@@bencox3641 Why would they do it? Why would they hold an election with one choice? Propaganda I figure. A fiction of democracy to fool people like you. Here, from the description of one of the videos you linked: "Candidates were selected in advance by the party and voters were only presented with one candidate for each constituency. In theory, a voter could decide not to cast this vote of approval, but that was not encouraged." But hey, some guy on UA-cam says one of his subscribers has totally been there and it's legit, so I guess it's legit.
For real, the creators of their lore furiously masturbate details until the average fan is put to sleep. For a lot of us, its about playing the game and/or painting, and the backgrounds of certain units we like. I like knowing what other factions are up to, but christ on a candle stick, it can get exhausting quick. They employ some great writers though.
Well, you see, Mars reveres technology as a divine gift. The Emperor wanted an atheist super state, but didn’t want to wage a prolonged war with the most technologically advanced place in the universe. So they compromised and conned the priesthood of Mars into believing that the emperor was an avatar of the machine god. Cause they’re dicks.
Regarding the Stalin quote and the daily functioning of the Soviet State, it's also important to note that, like the Soviet Union, one can hold elections where several people run in a relatively free and competitive election--with the one caveat being that all of the people running are from the same political party. In this system, the borderline to outright dictatorial goals of the central state can be maintained while granting voting rights and autonomy to the people in local government.
Loyalists and apathy-loyalists (aka "Who, but the Evil Overlord? At least he keeps the things running!") don't get enough credit. As a matter of fact, majority of the governments in history were and are backed by the people in one way or another. A government built entirely on violence is only viable for very small societies or limited periods of time (military occupation). A peasant in a feudal setting might seem like "they get nothing", but they actually get something very valuable: living within a regulated and protected society. Of course, governments are prone to mismanagment, deliberate and not, and that's when the unrest starts, but other than that, if you have an established society, chances are most people within it are fine with the way things are.
Something also worth mentioning is that in addition to politicians becoming out of touch of a public, sometimes a public can become out of touch with the politicians (something I see quite often today). People who make conspiracies, those who demand reforms without considering ingrained consequences and those who just wish for political parties to work together, yet when they compromise they see it as a betrayal. Something worth considering, sometimes people can get upset even when the government isn't corrupt
After all I've heard thousands of stories about people rising up against a corrupt government, but not against a government that's doing the best with the hand it's been dealt being attacked by misguided or overzealous rebels
@@mini2239 this is the basic situation in the story I'm writing. A feudal kingdom is under threat of being conquered by a big powerful empire from across the sea, and has to conscript peasants in large numbers to have any chance of defending themselves. The commoners from provinces not directly exposed to the war resent the crown for trying to make them join the army when it's really for their own good, just a hard sell.
@@jackvancekirkland Sounds interesting, I hope it does well. I'm doing my own planning with a sci fi setting. With overconfident populist human faction trying to reject the influences of the greater galaxy even when it's clear that Humanity is dependent on that wider galaxy. It's still in the planning stages right now and ideas phase, but I hope to see more people examine this angle. I'm so sick of governments apparently must be in the wrong because their the government.
People are upset because they want something to be upset about. Life is a lot easier and clean now, so we have more time to indulge ourselves in nonsense.
Most important point to make still : for pretty much all pre-modern societies (and arguably still most modern societies), the state is in large part a collection of privileges (=private laws). For writers, that's pretty convenient, because really for the most part, no two cities were ruled exactly the same way at any one time in history. So don't be afraid to change things up a little when moving from region to region, if only by making names change for similar govt-related things. Also of note : although one might think of "tax-breaks" and "tax-cuts" as a pretty modern thing, they are, in fact, at least as old as the high middle ages. For example, there are plenty of examples of lords giving tax exemptions when founding a city so as to attract newcomers in the 1000s and 1100s. And then, on taxes : for much of history, tax-collection wasn't really a "job" per se. Quite often, the tax-collector would pay upfront to then get the right to collect taxes, which would go to repaying him. But that's obviously not the only system : rule of thumb is : everything is interwoven. However, it would also be wrong to think of accountability of tax collectors as a modern thing. For example, the Court of Accounts was founded in the early 14th century in France to make sure tax collectors were A) not stealing from the crown and B) not overcharging (because they realized it was bad for the economy). Final point : in the middle ages, it was common to have various taxes paid in intervals at different festivals. Having multiple taxes spread out meant that the authority of the lord was constantly reminded to the peasantry. Having them be paid at festivals gave tax-paying an almost sacred aspect (which it has : Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar) ; plus the festivities might ease people off the bad taste of giving up one tenth of their crop.
Tax breaks are regular in the ancient world. It was common in Classical Greece and Rome for conquered cities to be given several years tax breaks, sometimes going on for decades, including places taken for their high tax revenues, as a form of pacification. There are even some bronze age accounts of this tactic (I think plunder, tribute and peace deals were the major sources of war wealth, so holding off on taxation wasn't as difficult as today)
One kind of government that is worth mentioning is aristocracy. Historically most governments have been aristocracies, including what is referred to as chieftaindoms, as well as many so-called monarchies. This is simply a case of government devolving to alliances between a number of big-men who control certain territories primarily by virtue of wealth. This is one thing that is greatly missing in most fantasy novel as well as something that makes ASOIAF stand out from the crowd.
My government is a mix between aristocracy and meritocracy. I feel that those are pretty natural results of human development and flow well in the story. The story is in the pre-modern era.
What ASOIAF does so well is that it takes the extremely complex medieval English feodal system and simplifies it to make it easier to understand without making it not make sense or cutting out any essential parts of it
that painfully stupid scene in the season finale of GOT - when the council laughed at the idea of democracy - as if it's something incredibly new. even though Braavos, the Dothraki, Qarth and other in-world most succesful states are republics and democracies...
That scene was stupid for so many reasons but that is one of the biggest. Even the ironborn have an elective monarchy which has some democratic features unlike most of westeros
I think they laughed at the idea because Sam proposed giving the people a vote, that means that even ignorant peasants would have the right to vote which is a bad idea. And at the end of the day they did end up with a democracy, sort of, where all the Lord's will have a say in who rules which is also a bad idea.
@@valkorion8958 That's not a democracy if only noble houses can vote. It's called an elective monarchy, or even some form of elective parliamentary monarchy with a body of aristocrats that are acting as the electoral college.
It actually is a democracy, democracy means when people choose who will be their leader, in this case the people are the nobility. Elective Monarchy is not a Successive Monarchy, in fact it is more similar to what a Dictator was during ancient times. It doesn't seem to matter whether other 3rd parties were not allowed a say in the matter. Just look at the USA that didn't allow women to vote, yet it was still a democracy. Even going more back in the Roman Republic the votes from the Senate were the things that mattered most.
Kind of like in Six of Crows in which one of the characters is from the country built around religious fanatism. The author doesn't do too much with that tho, since the book is more a heist story than anything else.
It's cool that as a part of my first D&D character background, I worked with my DM to create what we called the Horde of Krusk. A nominally orcish republic mildly based off the mongols that absorbed a bunch of small bands of so called "monstrous races". My character was one of the possible heirs and needed to bring something of value back to the horde before I could rule.
Honestly though, Daenerys' outburst was completely out of character. She would murder people before, yes, and brutally so... but never an entire god damn city, and especially not because she lost a few people. The fact taht she went directly for the townsfolk instead of Cersei is a prime example of how they butchered her entire character.
Amazing video, James. I'm actually writting a story were the characters are living in a country that's in a process of changing its government system, and even if its not the main focus of the story I really feel its necessary to give life and detail to those kind of things to make it more rich.
14:12 Ok, the movies might not portray this very well, but the hunger games books actually do have several competing factions. District 13, the Rebels from the poorer districts, the district 1 and 2 rebels, and the Capitol rebels all have different goals and levels of commitment to the cause. President Coin (Leader of district 13) wanted to become president of whatever goverment got formed after the fall of the capitol and even took steps to assasinate Katniss in order to prevent her from swaying the poorer districts to another leader. Plutarch (effectively head of the Capitol Rebels) works with Coin and District 13 for most of the books. However upon her death, he seems pleased and quickly dumps district 13 in order to side with Paylor and help her become president, getting a position in her cabinet in return. District 2 which was far less mistreated, had a much smaller rebel group lead by Commander Lyme. The rebels in 2 struggled much more as many of their citizens sided with the capitol and required reinforcements from 13 in order to take the district. Despite this Lyme still clashed with Coin over strategies and refused to follow 13's plans. District 1 on the other hand, despite being richer and favored by the capitol sided with the rebels far earlier and where able to use thier industrial power to be one of the first districts to be freed from the capitol. District 8 was the first to rebel and was temporarily quite successful but was overwhelmed by capitol forces and along with the rest of the poorer districts became heavily reliant on support from district 13. However, by the time the capitol fell they had recovered greatly, and some rebels were willing to follow Paylor's orders over Coin's. After Coin's death the poorer districts where able to rally together and get Paylor elected president.
@James Tullos Thanks for bringing up anarchism. The movement consistently gets their history essentially demolished by the powers that be who rewrite history to suit themselves...
its also due to that anarchism for a lot of people its hard to wrap thier heads around or is disgreed with at time vehemently , as well its it own thing in a way menaing it doesnt get the same attention as say soem branches of communism
@@Yingyanglord1 Yep. A trilogy of videos that I've enjoyed a lot is this one: ua-cam.com/video/JZ-utvfgK8Q/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/77GKgbUGJK0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/M6pysEKlg0Q/v-deo.html Mind you, please do use some common sense when watching this. The video is clearly partisan. Not just towards the anarchist point of view vs other ideologies but also towards certain branches more so then others. The videos *are* good. But use some source criticism and cross reference the things covered with other sources.
@@longiusaescius2537 Anarchism as a ideology definitely exists, and it *has* been tried out and worked in some areas in Spain and Ukraine as well as smaller scale in many locations around the world, including France and Israel. Unfortunately anarchist movements larger then individual city districts always end up being destroyed by political opponents.
I've been trying to figure out how to slap together my own story for a while now and these videos have been making it so much easier for me to find somewhere to start. Thank you.
"We are given no information on them what so ever." Than shows the Emperor of mankind, will someone needs to look up one of the many lore videos about the Imperium on UA-cam.
6:27 _The Roman Republic also existing because in part due to Lucius Junius Brutus, who is responsible for the expulsion of his uncle the Roman king Tarquinius Superbus after the suicide of Lucretia, which led to the overthrow of the Roman monarchy - thus becoming one of the two first consuls of the new Roman Republic in 509 BC._ (Consequently, Marcus Junius Brutus (the well known assassin of Julius Caesar) is related to Lucius Junius Brutus. This is in part due to the Oath of Brutus in which it is to never allow a king to rule Rome again.)
"There's a king who runs everything" (Proceeds to show the dead emperor of an incredibly fleshed out, varied and decentralised government which has detailed the processes worlds, systems and sectors can be and are governed)
"... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses."
Though I don't fully agree with it, the monarchist perspective does have a logic to it, since the skills required to become a democratic leader are completely irrelevant to those required to rule well (much like how any two professions have almost entirely unlinked skill sets) you will have rather than a class of professional leaders a class of professional campaigners. Faced with this option, the dice roll of good king/bad king can seem preferable to the apparent guarantee of a democracy producing a continuous set of subpar leaders.
Also, I am an 'anthropologist' who will get angry at you for using the term 'chiefdom', mostly because it is vastly over-applied. It's application is no where near as solidified as how you present it in this video, and in researching African history, I'll frequently find it applied to societies inwhich the use of the word does not follow your definition, or to societies inwhich we have no idea how leaders were selected (because too ancient; eg: A-Group Nubia). Just keep that in mind. I mostly bring this up because this video presents the concept of 'chiefdom' as clearly defined and unbiased, when in reality it is far from that, and struggles from lots of academic bias, especially against societies of certain regions (ahem, africa. ahem, the americas.) As a result, the word often forms a sort of arbitrary gate-keeping between 'advanced tribes' and 'true kingdoms', which really only serves to belittle complex societies, and is a remnant of far more... racist times. I say this not to tear you or your videos apart, but mostly so that any viewer who happens to read the comments can be notified about this, since I find it to be pretty important information that was left out of the video due to (presumably) time constraints. If it was time constraints, I feel you mate. :(
I loved your take on Anarchism, I think its a idear that is explored not that often and it can bring a nice touch to many settings also somthing like a counter revolution is an intersting idear let there be a successfull Anarchist Revolution but than the bad guys come back and the people struggel with fighting them and don't drivte them self in to a new dictatorship or somthing in this direction somthing like this could Bring a really new flavor to a overused trope like this
I think Star Wars Rebels went a little bit into rebel infighting. There were some rebels with different fighting methods, and some who didn’t want to be part of any bit fight.
Thank you SO MUCH for recognizing anarchists and the impact that they've had on history. So many stories totally leave them out because they misunderstand the ideology, and then make rebels with half baked motivations and goals. Hopefully more people will learn about the impact anarchists have had and include them in stories. I know I will ;) Oh, and I also just wanted to say that these worldbuilding videos are all amazing and have given me a lot to think about to improve the setting that I'm writing.
Imagine this: the loyalists in a revolution *might actually think the government is in the right* !!! Sounds incredibly unrealistic, I know, but maybe--just maybe--it's worth a try. (edit): On a different note, I'm currently working on a story that has a religio-feudal monarchy with a quasi-divine king literally descended from the kingdom's goddess and a demi-goddess in charge of a monolithic temple organisation who steers the whole state from behind-the-scenes-sort-of. It's the king's job to handle the everyday affairs of state, but he or she gets their legitimacy from the demi-goddess in charge of the temple. Although it's possible for the nobles to stand against the temple, it would take a lot of guts to do so considering the demi-goddess not only acts on behalf of the goddess who founded the kingdom, but that demi-goddess is also a genius with centuries of experience and a master arch-mage.
In the american revolution, alot of people actually did like Britan, but alot of people also just went with them because they wanted money, or they thought they would win and wanted to be on the winning side so they could get a better deal.
Another flaw I hate is that Rebels can do no harm as only the big bad Government are the ones who do it, in war, everyone's both an oppressor and oppressed, The government may commit a massacre to quell a riot but a rebel group may hang captured soldiers and loyalists outside their territories to scare their enemies, thing is, make them both a hero and antagonists of their own stories, like the good-willed but incompetent NCR, or the cruel but powerful Legion, people have ideals and most will fight for it, either by choice or by circumstances, they will do it and they will do it with any methods necessary.
For a great examples of how dirty civil wars can get highly recommend the Mexican Revolution. Just horrible, horrible acts of violence perpetrated by both sides of the conflict.
For worldbuilding, you can always have transitional oddities of government like Kaiserreich's Mongolia with Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, the Bloody Baron, acting as regent. Not only was he an outsider, but a Mongolphile and a wildcard that could bring about a second Mongol Empire... he can even declare himself the reincarnation of the Great Khan
I mostly like electorial monarchs aka line of succession where the king is the figure head and he relys on elected by the public officials to keep him informed that is a system I like.
@@JohnWilliams-wl9px true I am mostly talking about the book the merchants war sorry I can not specify that is the only part of the books I remember thx for the reply what is your fav government system
15:15 I was always debating about doing that, having serveral stories focused on loyalist BUT when I described my worlds to some folks, they said no one would really back it unless it's just those higher folks... I tried changing their reasoning into being loyal- some simply not wanting conflict and thinking hat submissiveness helps (which after the rebellion it did because the rulers wanted to enforce the idea that they were the 'good guys') and some being loyal because even though they suffer they have seen the rebels as too destructive making life worst and all. I had a few other reasons but was discouraged to keep going.
The thing about rebels not being united... Could be another reason why no attempt at revolution has been made in my story. The different secret groups, besides lacking communication and the indifference of the population and their bad geographic position, are now thanks to your video also militing for different goals, going from the right to educate their written language to the reducing of their working hours, from moderate to extrem. I can add it with a few paragraph here and there, that's what is great.
I’d like to say that Blizzard’s Starcraft franchise has a very ornate but relatable “revolution” plot; by just following the Terran Campaigns: SC1: local militia learns too much, gets penalized for doing a good deed and joins with a radical terrorist sect to avoid death or incarceration. Later engaging the existing confederated government in an insurgency turned civil war to finally overthrow it through a combination of having government staff go turn-coat and the use of WMDs. The WMDs causes the rebels to split and the dominant faction lets their charismatic leader to ascend to the throne as emperor and begin a campaign of hunting down his previous allies SC1(BW): Raynors Raiders team up with the Dominion when superior forces from earth come to man-handle the colonies into submission, and with some outside help and a lot of cooperation drive them back and there’s a moment of peace SC2: Raynors Raiders, after building up in relatively peaceful hiding, finally have enough resources and support to begin a campaign of overthrowing the dominion by turning the citizens against it, but eventually have to team up with them to stop an exterior threat (I haven’t played the two expansion campaigns but I believe the Dominion crumbles for a lot of reasons so if someone who has played them could explain what happens next I’d appreciate it)
07:11 Reminds me of a custom planet I'm making for a Battletech RPG. Since it's run by a mixed band of Inner Sphere Immigrants and former Clan Bondsmen out in the Periphery, the Vat-Born Humans (both scientist and warrior caste) demanded their own seperate legislative house to represent them in the lawmaking process instead of being mixed in with the "freebirths." Think of it as being akin to the British House of Nobles. The Freeborn Nobles (Both regular nobles/aristocrats and warriors that happen to have aristocratic ancestry) that moved in from the Inner Sphere also demanded their own similar houses separate from the "commoners." This further slows down the legislative Process as there are now Three Houses a bill has to pass through before it even becomes a law.
One form of government that I find is very rare in almost all genres are elected monarchies or appointed representatives voting for the head of state. The Holy Roman Empire or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are real-world examples of this form of government and even today Germany's head of state still only elected by members from their parliament and still it rarely ever shows up.
One thing that also is very interesting and under-utilized is the idea of imperial colonies. The conflict between the ruling minority and the culturally distinct mainland and their technological and cultural differences is very unique.
4:38 Yes, but she still could have been handled better. Her arc was rushed like the rest of the show. Also, why did you zoom in on Prince Philip like that? You Mae him seem like some sinisterly powerful autocrat rather than, you know, the guy married to the ACTUAL monarch.
Jonathan Campbell Yeah our issue isn't where she ended up, it's how she ended up here, for most of the show she was slightly more Ruthless then average rulers at time while not ever reaching Boltons level of fucked up, yet she suddenly became the a genocidal nutcase on a dime because...??? "There's only two episodes left and we need to make this ending shocking for the sake of shock."
@@InquisitorThomas the worst part is that it's been confirmed in interviews that that is GRRM's original planned ending, that he's you to stick to it with the books and that he even advised the showrunners to do it. Even if the books ever were finished in the next thousand years, I fear they're still doomed
4:00 i think a sci-fi hereditary monarchy could make sense, but there would have to actually be something special about that family not just propaganda saying there's something special. Maybe make the family the product of some eugenic breeding program? Or have them be rare alien hybrids? You'd need to justify it, to maintain it in a sci-fi setting.
Worthless Winner Sci-fi setting and fantasy settings you have more room to justify it unlike one with a more realistic setting. As you could legitimately have rulers who are descendants from gods.
@@JohnWilliams-wl9px - the best thing a monarchy in a realistic setting could do is base itself off real examples in the modern world. The more realistic alternative history scenarios could also be inspiration. They seem to rely on complex international relationships - playing big non-monarchies off against each other. This is a bit too complex for a lot of books, especially if a benefit of monarchy of those books is that it's simple.
Something notable: The Bolsheviks were perfectly happy to keep the royal family alive and in captivity - they only had them executed when it became clear the city they were being held in was about to fall to the monarchists. Why? Because if they left even one member of the royal family alive, they could be recaptured by the monarchists and placed back on the throne as a rightful heir. Killing off the entire royal family nipped the monarchist problem in the bud. This is useful to think about - often in fiction, when the evil king/queen is overthrown, they alone suffer retribution for their crimes. However, if they have any family at all, any one of their living relatives could make a claim on the throne. That’s why if you’re overthrowing a monarchy it’s not enough to just take out the monarch - you have to take out the whole bloodline.
@@SirBenjiful Like I said, I understand the why. Saying they had to because is justification. Also there were nobles who survived in exile that could have been installed, it would not be the first dynasty change in history. Obviously the will for monarchy was broken. The murder of the children was a cowardly act that they justified the same way you did. If any survive, the monarchy could, possibly, maybe somehow (very unlikely) rise again.
One thing that's annoying about the dystopia genre is how it's almost always set in a post-apocalyptic world to avoid having to talk about governments and cultures outside the one that's being focused on.
Things people forget about absolutism is that it sorta only occurred after renaissance and not during Middle Ages. Other thing, only a very small percentage of a population take upon arms to fight. Even 20% of it is a stretch. Most people don’t want to shed blood, neither theirs or from others. Last thing is that the historical revolutions hardly ever were started or headed by the poor and popular, they were actually a movement by learned men, merchants, smaller nobles and the alike. Even Robin Hood was a noble before and after the story.
I came up with a massive space empire a long time ago, that started with one colony ship, but never really fleshed out its government. Here's what I have in mind: Civilian ships tend to have their crews divided into three departments: the deck department, who see to the ship's mission, the engineering department, who maintain the ship, and the stewardship department, who maintain the crew. That roughly corresponds to cities being zoned for commercial, industrial, and residential. There's an emperor who is nominally regarded as a god, and who strictly regulates logistics, but has little real power beyond that, and a military dictatorship who pay lip-service to the emperor but mostly ignore him. This seems like it's leaning toward a caste system, with a state religion taking over where the deck crew left off, the military coming out of the engineering department, and a diet that oversees civic matters coming out of the stewardship department.
Its usefull to think of societies as multi cell organisms that developed through historic imput. May I ask a few questions? So at first why did they replicate the order from the colony ship to the society? Was knowlege about political theory opressed? Who was the first emperor and how did he come to fill this role? Didnt the other casts ever rebell? How was this rebellion oppressed? How did the supposed divine emperor loose his power? Is this an elective or heteditary post? Is cast membership a genetic or a hereditary or an education-based trait? Is there any social mobility between the casts or is it outlawed, what happens to the people who break these rules? Is there a certified code of law or a group of priests or just military command? Who is the real power, a military council? What keeps the "crew" together, a foreign hostile enviroment- how do loyalists justify their stance? How does that look like in reality? How are detractors from the system punished? Is there illegal cultural imagery connected to previous rebellions? No outside contact? A few questions that might help you flesh that idea out a bit.
To add a point as well, not all parts of an empire are ruled the same way. So the British Empire ruled India, different to Canada, different to South Africa, they took into account the local culture and beliefs. They also changed how they ruled empire after the loss of the 13 Colonies.
The targaryens are in charge because dragons, and they are still in charge because dragons, and when they lost there dragons, well lets not talk about that bit
Im probably the only one who likes the idea of Phantom Menace being about politics, even if there are several issues. I get that for most people Star Wars is about battles and atmosphere, but I still like to see the universe fleshed out.
It's also weird that planets in science fiction so often have one government. It's understandable because it's simpler and a planet can be the equivalent of a country, but uniting the globe is very difficult.
it would be one thing if the government in question was like the UN or EU. where most of the governments are their own individual countries, but they also have some representation in a world wide overarching body, with representation being delt with individually by country with how representatives are chosen. in my sci fy universe im making the galactic government is based on this, with 3 different houses, with different amounts of representatives per house (one is planet based, with one representative per planet, one is population base, with each system getting representation based on total population per planet in a system, so individual planets in a system do get some representation, and a 1+cabnet system, based loosly on the Soviet system, where the representative that actually attends meetings acting more as a way to let everyone know how the cabinet voted. with each system getting only one vote in the last house, and having as many people in the cabnet as they want, but it is typically just 1-2 people per planet)
There was actually a form of monarchy that was practiced in Rome for hundreds of years where the emperor was adopted into the royal family and selected as the heir, rather than traditional hereditary system
One thing I will say of anarchism is that, it often has significant effects but then doesn't actually take power. Instead, a more pragmatic, but less utopian, authoritarian system like capitalism or socialism is put in place.
@Kevin Warburton It's been a while since I watched them, but I'm pretty sure she had power. If she was a ceremonial figure, why have an electoral roll for her position? I'm not sure where you got the idea that she was just a figure head. She ran a campaign, won, and ruled. So there were other politicians? That doesn't detract from her position.
@Kevin Warburton I mean in TPM it seems like shes the one in charge. She's being asked to surrender, shes going to the senate, shes leading the assault on the planet. You wouldnt see a figurehead like Queen Elizabeth doing that.
The Hunger Games revolutionaries did not get along. At all. The leader for one of the faction's tried to install herself as the new dictator after all.
One book that I found particularly interesting in dealing with this aspect is the Legend of the Galactic Heroes. It’s the only novel that I’ve read, which explored the idea how a supposedly democratic government became corrupted by money and political struggle, leading it to betray its own people, and how a military committee failed to save the country because they too, got corrupted by power during the process. Eventually it was the empire with strong Militarism won the heart of the people.
@@Dragfos that's not what I was talking about but Vatican is an absolute monarchy, it's not the same as dictatorship even though in practice it kind of is
Fun fact, canada was technically a constitutional monarchy till we got our "independence" from the crown in 1981. Basically we make our own laws and rules, but the queen, or i guess king now, or with permission the attourney general, can shut it down and say no to something being proposed. I put independence in quotes because for some reason, its still that way. They say its not a constitutional monarchy but the king can still shut stuff down? If we werent still tied to the monarchy, why do we have a prime minister, not a sovereign head of state like a president chancellor, or our own king/queen?
Monarchies are attractive because they’re stable and efficient. Plus, if anything bad happens, just blame the king. No complicated bickering of over payed senators, no wild instability of anarchy or dictatorships, no mad demands of self proclaimed prophets, and no petty squabbles of foppish nobles. Just a sovereign and their people.
I think the petty squabbles of nobles are inevitable in a monarchy, given that the nobility rules directly under the king. Even an absolute monarchy tends to have its power diluted among different hierarchies of nobles
@4:38 I don't think that everyone is really upset about it ending that way, it's more about how the series failed to really set it up. If you want a good example of seeing a leader evolve into a tyrant look at Palpatine, we know he's evil but he plays up the benevolent politician role at the beginning and slowly strips away any and all pretense by the end. Daenarys spent most of the series coming across as learning from her families mistakes, after all she was initially a victim of the consequences of those mistakes, she would find solutions to problems that balanced her ambition with her kinder nature. So when she decided to turn heel it felt way too sudden and contradicts the character growth the previous seasons spent so much time on.
I know you clarified in text, but it bears repeating that the divine right of kings is an early modern political theory, not a medieval one. It is when kings centralize their power, strip the nobility of their independent rights and create a middle class bureaucracy that is completely dependent on them, and when Protestantism/Humanism (both dependent on the return to the original texts, be they Classical thought and law, which ascribe a coherent legal code for all rather than a patchwork of power, and the Bible which in Paul justifies the political will as revelation of the divine will) that this theory crops up. Since in our post-modern minds this is almost a contradiction, we tend to push this political theory further into the past.
3:24 you do realise that the Pope IS the combined role of king and pope. The king of the Vatican and the pope of the Vatican are 2 different things and happen to be held by the same person.
I was recently reading the first book of the lightbringer series and its interestening to think about stuff like this and be suprised when the religious ruler/figurehead is basically just a puppet or just basically someone who doesnt really have power but potentially could be dangerous. details like that makes the difference between telling a regular heroes journey story and making something truly unique by still being a compelling heroes journey story.
Note also that even in Mediaeval Europe feudalism with serfs wasn't the norm always, in Scandinavia peasants have always mostly owned their own land and in my own country, Sweden, the monarchy wasn't necessarily even hereditary until the 1500s and we've always had a sort-of-parliament called Riksdag with the four estates of Nobles, Priests, Burghers, and Peasants being represented
In my book, there are several rebels who fight because they enjoy killing and want an excuse to do so. Ive always thought wouldnt rebellionism attract people who naturally like to rebel from the laws of the land even the basic ones, and rebels would take almost anyone
Another very interesting form of government may also be Corporation controlled governments, similar to the Various European East India Companies of the 17th and 18th centuries.
Funnily enough the factionalism is a main reason the big rebellion in my backstory failed. Thousands of rebel groups, numbering millions worldwide, but too many of them disagree on what comes after the war.
With a profile pic like that, I should have expected a comment like that. Don't take this the wrong way. I do not say that you should change your political views. I just noticed that your profile pic and comment has a connection.
I actually have a idea of a government where there is many Monarch and these Monarchs would vote for a High Monarch. The Airs and Possible Airs of the Monarchs would be rise to act be the next Monarchs, since those who are running the High Monarch come from the these Monarchs.
![On Worldbuilding - Island Civilisations! [ GoT | Japan | Ghibli ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pTYpjsGcKgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![On Worldbuilding: How Class Systems Work [ Avatar | Dune | Tolkien | Feudalism ]](/img/n.gif)
Egypt actually had a form of government rarely portrayed in fantasy stories, a true honest to god State run economy managed by bureaucrats in the name of the Pharoah, enabled by the need for a strict management of the Nile river to prevent catastrophic flooding, if you put that in most fantasy stories then people would just think it’s some stupid allegory for communism or somesuch.
Egypt was bonkers I tell you.
The Inkas were organized like that, too, and the mightiest Empire in the Americas before the Europeans arrived. A well run centralized Economy is actually very good.
I have a theocracy in my stories.
beurocracies aren't unheard of i.e. china, egypt the inca's, modern china etc. the problem is they rely on an already centralised system (both egypt and china were on rivers) and so don't appear much in typical european history.
That's called a Palace Economy, and it wasn't uncommon at all during the bronze age. Central states, which mostly formed around river valleys and irrigation systems. Anything utilizing a palace economy is usually called an allegory for communism because 20th century communists utilized Command Economies to, as communist thought believed at the time, bridge the gap between feudalism and socialism proper, and they are a slightly more decentralized version of Palace Economy.
Good to remember how government is linked to economics, war, population size, etc. You can't have hunter-gatherer tribes with a complex representative democracy and a standing army (or at least, it'd be hard to explain that!) for example.
Representative democracy is plausible there I think with elected chiefs and tribal assemblies when several related tribes meet.
But yeah, a standing army tends to be something that was done by either settled populations of farmers etc or by nomadic herders, not hunter gatherers.
@@Luredreier yeah the elected chiefs is a great idea.
also, hunter gatherers could have a safe haven where they stay in seasons where hunting doesn't work out, and in those places they could probably have a kind of council.
@@glanni Elected chiefs were a real thing in history.
@@장경철-q7f most native american tribes seemed to work with elected chiefs. Although there was a bit of heretical mixed in, it did seem to come down to the tribes sporting that individual. That individual might just happen to be the last chiefs son, but could be an outsider who had proven himself to the tribe.
they just hunt and gather really well
1:00 it kinda was uncommon in real history though. While absolute monarchy was, on paper, the system of a lot of countries, it has never really been the system.Kings are constrained by their nobles and don't have much direct power. They usually had no standing army and limited tax bases, so most power derived from the nobles or bureaucrats, so they had to give those guys what they wanted or they'd lose what power they seemed to have. When there was a standing army, that usually became a power in itself.
yeah, there were few true absolute monarchies in history, often the kings were at the mercy of their nobility and if most or all of them turned on the king, he would certainly be overthrown.
No man rules alone, after all. Even at the time of the French Revolution, the king wasn't absolute no matter how many people have tried to paint him as such. One of the big reasons why the revolutionaries were able to get organised was because the government was bankrupt and the king needed to reform the tax system, but he couldn't do that without calling a huge council made up of representatives from all three classes: nobles, clergy, and commoners (although the "commoners" that came were mostly wealthy merchants, not working-class people).
Absolutism wasnt a common thing in middle ages. The King's power was very diminished and shared with nobles and land owners or practically everyone who can raise some levy xd. It became much more relevant during modern ages. Probably France was the most representative example but there are few more. it was kinda hard to be in Europe in that moment and not being Absolutist... ask Polish or Dutch.
Worthless Winner At most the king is the face of the country so when things go bad everything is put in him and not the nobles.
@@JohnWilliams-wl9px ^
government, in any form, is ultimately power. when worldbuilding, I would consider how that power can/is exercised and projected, and then from that decide the system of government.
Cool. But how do you define "power" to begin with? Different ways of thinking about the nature of power can result in different systems altogether.
Arthur Aleksandravicius power is the ability to make people do what you want them to do.
@@commander31able60
I suppose a good example of this mentality of world building can be found in Mad Max: Fury Road, where the big bad keeps control of the people by controlling the water supply.
@@festethephule7553 yea that's one.
"This video is now banned in China"?
The entire UA-cam has actually been blocked in China for about 12 years now.
It's a joke about the Tianmen Square Massacres that *totally* didn't happen.
@LagiNaLangAko23
Only hundreds? I would have hoped it would be at least a few thousand.
Feste the Phule
The picture the journalists took of the man blocking Tanks was just the military offering the man a ride because his groceries were too heavy
Xiaohan Liu I would just use youtube then
@@rvc7468, how do you know that? Also, isn't there footage somewhere of when the tank turned to go around the guy, and he stepped in front of the tank again. How the hell does that make sense with what you're claiming?
I wish to point out that the Hunger Games actually had a loyalist faction, District 2. It was split between loyalists and revolutionaries. The more I look back at the Hunger Games, the more I can appreciate how much actual thought was put into it. The revolution was implied to have factionalism and was brutal at times. It as the most realistic depiction of politics in a YA dystopia and it's nuance was lost on many of its imitators.
(Also I may be remembering this wrong but I'm fairly certain the bombing of the children at the end was to draw a complete end to the violence, including any possible dissent from other factions. I may have just made that up though)
A little addition about statelessness:
Often geography shapes and limits states. When building statists and stateless societies, think about why there is a state, and there is not. Governments exist because they are able to force people and collect taxes in some ways. Therefore, there will be less government in hard-to-reach areas like mountains and jungles, or just lands too far from centres of power. Think of Zomia: no access to taxpayers - no taxes. “Taxes ate the valleys, honor ate the hills” - Afghan proverb
Also, some living practices would make in harder for government to exist. It is easy to tax peasant, who lives in one place and grows one type of grain which is harvested once a year at the same time. But how would you calculate taxes for person who grows five types of potatoes, do fishing and gathering in the woods? How would you find nomad to tax them? How would you control the population of mountainous valley where people speak 20 different languages (and do not have writing system for any of these 20)? It would be nice to take all these methods and variations of “the art of not being governed” into consideration when you do worldbuilding stuff
you raise a good point i might use this as an idea for my rpg i am running also i can tell in the second paragraph you basically describe Afghanistan
Or what happened even in remote areas of Europe even only a couple hundred years ago, where as soon as people saw someone approaching the village who didn't look like he was from the area, everybody just ran off. A tax collector can't collect taxes if all the villagers just run off to the woods and wait until he gets bored and leaves.
@@GrrrIamMad Also this generaliatically explains the existence of small enclaves in Europe like Monaco, Andorra, Luxemburg or Liechtenstein- ruling them from a large nationstate that would love to annex them out of a simple reason of state "conquest for the nation" mentality just does not happen- sometimes a place is to complicated to be annexed, where the costs of raising taxes outweigh the taxes, and therefore left alone.
To tax through 20 different languages, I'd make a basic logography which can be used in every language and use that to tax, once I establish one connection to teach it one time
o.o
It's also important to remember that even the most powerful, monolithic monarch or dictator had people to answer to. They all had some group (nobles, religious leaders, generals, oligarchs, etc) who could remove them if they pushed too far. Even if no single member of that group was as powerful as the ruler, he/she still needed to keep some of the on his/her side to rule effectively. The only way around this is via magic/futuristic technology that can allow the leader to rule without any need for help.
Also hereditary succession isn't out of the question in modern settings, just look at North Korea.
@@bencox3641 They don't SAY it's hereditary, but it basically is. The people of N. Korea have been ruled by the Kim family since N. Korea became a country. Meanwhile, the Bushes have been influential, but 12 years of Bush surrounded by decades of not-bush, isn't the same as 70 years of Kim.
@@bencox3641 Calling the country a republic and saying the people voted doesn't make it true. N. Korea is an authoritarian dictatorship whether you want to admit it or not.
@@bencox3641 Yes there is proof of "elections". Elections where there is only one candidate, chosen by the government. Elections where the only option for dissent is to cross out the candidates name in full view of government monitors.
Being anti-American doesn't automatically make you evil, but it also doesn't automatically make you good.
@@bencox3641 Then how do elections work in N. Korea? Where is your proof? Do you live in N. Korea? Neither do I, so yes, I have to learn about it from other people. That's why I check multiple sources, including ones from outside the US.
So, unless you have some evidence other than, "America is EVIL!!", I'm done with this conversation.
@@bencox3641 Why would they do it? Why would they hold an election with one choice? Propaganda I figure. A fiction of democracy to fool people like you.
Here, from the description of one of the videos you linked: "Candidates were selected in advance by the party and voters were only presented with one candidate for each constituency.
In theory, a voter could decide not to cast this vote of approval, but that was not encouraged."
But hey, some guy on UA-cam says one of his subscribers has totally been there and it's legit, so I guess it's legit.
Warhammer 40k is not simple. Im on the 47th book in the HH-series and the intricacies of the earth-mars alliance bored me to death.
For real, the creators of their lore furiously masturbate details until the average fan is put to sleep. For a lot of us, its about playing the game and/or painting, and the backgrounds of certain units we like. I like knowing what other factions are up to, but christ on a candle stick, it can get exhausting quick.
They employ some great writers though.
Well, you see, Mars reveres technology as a divine gift. The Emperor wanted an atheist super state, but didn’t want to wage a prolonged war with the most technologically advanced place in the universe. So they compromised and conned the priesthood of Mars into believing that the emperor was an avatar of the machine god. Cause they’re dicks.
Caiã Wlodarski Well, being a God wasn’t his idea. His lackeys did that after he got stabbed and decided to take a 10,000 year nap.
yah when they tried that when he was alive he got fed up and purged a planet
Yingyanglord1 Dammit Erebus.
Regarding the Stalin quote and the daily functioning of the Soviet State, it's also important to note that, like the Soviet Union, one can hold elections where several people run in a relatively free and competitive election--with the one caveat being that all of the people running are from the same political party. In this system, the borderline to outright dictatorial goals of the central state can be maintained while granting voting rights and autonomy to the people in local government.
Independents ran for and won elections in the USSR.
ua-cam.com/video/Okz2YMW1AwY/v-deo.html
Just like in the US!
@@gearandalthefirst7027 true only centralists and almost nazis aloud.
@gearandalthefirst I ♥️ uss liberty
Loyalists and apathy-loyalists (aka "Who, but the Evil Overlord? At least he keeps the things running!") don't get enough credit. As a matter of fact, majority of the governments in history were and are backed by the people in one way or another. A government built entirely on violence is only viable for very small societies or limited periods of time (military occupation). A peasant in a feudal setting might seem like "they get nothing", but they actually get something very valuable: living within a regulated and protected society. Of course, governments are prone to mismanagment, deliberate and not, and that's when the unrest starts, but other than that, if you have an established society, chances are most people within it are fine with the way things are.
Aside from the roads, clean water, public safty, and stable ecoonmy, what has the evil overlord ever done for us? Nothing!
@@douglasphillips5870 Just don't go into the sewers.
They keep putting all the damn monsters down there >:|
@emeryltekutsu4357 nice pfp
o.o
Something also worth mentioning is that in addition to politicians becoming out of touch of a public, sometimes a public can become out of touch with the politicians (something I see quite often today). People who make conspiracies, those who demand reforms without considering ingrained consequences and those who just wish for political parties to work together, yet when they compromise they see it as a betrayal.
Something worth considering, sometimes people can get upset even when the government isn't corrupt
After all I've heard thousands of stories about people rising up against a corrupt government, but not against a government that's doing the best with the hand it's been dealt being attacked by misguided or overzealous rebels
@@mini2239 this is the basic situation in the story I'm writing. A feudal kingdom is under threat of being conquered by a big powerful empire from across the sea, and has to conscript peasants in large numbers to have any chance of defending themselves. The commoners from provinces not directly exposed to the war resent the crown for trying to make them join the army when it's really for their own good, just a hard sell.
@@jackvancekirkland Sounds interesting, I hope it does well. I'm doing my own planning with a sci fi setting. With overconfident populist human faction trying to reject the influences of the greater galaxy even when it's clear that Humanity is dependent on that wider galaxy.
It's still in the planning stages right now and ideas phase, but I hope to see more people examine this angle. I'm so sick of governments apparently must be in the wrong because their the government.
People are upset because they want something to be upset about. Life is a lot easier and clean now, so we have more time to indulge ourselves in nonsense.
There's no such thing as a government that isn't at least a little corrupt.
Most important point to make still : for pretty much all pre-modern societies (and arguably still most modern societies), the state is in large part a collection of privileges (=private laws). For writers, that's pretty convenient, because really for the most part, no two cities were ruled exactly the same way at any one time in history. So don't be afraid to change things up a little when moving from region to region, if only by making names change for similar govt-related things.
Also of note : although one might think of "tax-breaks" and "tax-cuts" as a pretty modern thing, they are, in fact, at least as old as the high middle ages. For example, there are plenty of examples of lords giving tax exemptions when founding a city so as to attract newcomers in the 1000s and 1100s.
And then, on taxes : for much of history, tax-collection wasn't really a "job" per se. Quite often, the tax-collector would pay upfront to then get the right to collect taxes, which would go to repaying him. But that's obviously not the only system : rule of thumb is : everything is interwoven. However, it would also be wrong to think of accountability of tax collectors as a modern thing. For example, the Court of Accounts was founded in the early 14th century in France to make sure tax collectors were A) not stealing from the crown and B) not overcharging (because they realized it was bad for the economy).
Final point : in the middle ages, it was common to have various taxes paid in intervals at different festivals. Having multiple taxes spread out meant that the authority of the lord was constantly reminded to the peasantry. Having them be paid at festivals gave tax-paying an almost sacred aspect (which it has : Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar) ; plus the festivities might ease people off the bad taste of giving up one tenth of their crop.
Tax breaks are regular in the ancient world. It was common in Classical Greece and Rome for conquered cities to be given several years tax breaks, sometimes going on for decades, including places taken for their high tax revenues, as a form of pacification. There are even some bronze age accounts of this tactic (I think plunder, tribute and peace deals were the major sources of war wealth, so holding off on taxation wasn't as difficult as today)
One kind of government that is worth mentioning is aristocracy. Historically most governments have been aristocracies, including what is referred to as chieftaindoms, as well as many so-called monarchies. This is simply a case of government devolving to alliances between a number of big-men who control certain territories primarily by virtue of wealth. This is one thing that is greatly missing in most fantasy novel as well as something that makes ASOIAF stand out from the crowd.
My government is a mix between aristocracy and meritocracy. I feel that those are pretty natural results of human development and flow well in the story. The story is in the pre-modern era.
What ASOIAF does so well is that it takes the extremely complex medieval English feodal system and simplifies it to make it easier to understand without making it not make sense or cutting out any essential parts of it
@oskarileikos what's that?
that painfully stupid scene in the season finale of GOT - when the council laughed at the idea of democracy - as if it's something incredibly new. even though Braavos, the Dothraki, Qarth and other in-world most succesful states are republics and democracies...
That scene was stupid for so many reasons but that is one of the biggest. Even the ironborn have an elective monarchy which has some democratic features unlike most of westeros
Agreed!
I think they laughed at the idea because Sam proposed giving the people a vote, that means that even ignorant peasants would have the right to vote which is a bad idea. And at the end of the day they did end up with a democracy, sort of, where all the Lord's will have a say in who rules which is also a bad idea.
@@valkorion8958 That's not a democracy if only noble houses can vote. It's called an elective monarchy, or even some form of elective parliamentary monarchy with a body of aristocrats that are acting as the electoral college.
It actually is a democracy, democracy means when people choose who will be their leader, in this case the people are the nobility. Elective Monarchy is not a Successive Monarchy, in fact it is more similar to what a Dictator was during ancient times.
It doesn't seem to matter whether other 3rd parties were not allowed a say in the matter. Just look at the USA that didn't allow women to vote, yet it was still a democracy.
Even going more back in the Roman Republic the votes from the Senate were the things that mattered most.
for some reason, the corupt and brutal govrements are often more intresting. a way to change things is to write it from the loyalists point of view.
Kind of like in Six of Crows in which one of the characters is from the country built around religious fanatism.
The author doesn't do too much with that tho, since the book is more a heist story than anything else.
Read Overlord
It's cool that as a part of my first D&D character background, I worked with my DM to create what we called the Horde of Krusk. A nominally orcish republic mildly based off the mongols that absorbed a bunch of small bands of so called "monstrous races". My character was one of the possible heirs and needed to bring something of value back to the horde before I could rule.
Honestly though, Daenerys' outburst was completely out of character. She would murder people before, yes, and brutally so... but never an entire god damn city, and especially not because she lost a few people. The fact taht she went directly for the townsfolk instead of Cersei is a prime example of how they butchered her entire character.
The Elder Scrolls had a lot of monarchs that were incorporated with gods
Amazing video, James.
I'm actually writting a story were the characters are living in a country that's in a process of changing its government system, and even if its not the main focus of the story I really feel its necessary to give life and detail to those kind of things to make it more rich.
14:12 Ok, the movies might not portray this very well, but the hunger games books actually do have several competing factions. District 13, the Rebels from the poorer districts, the district 1 and 2 rebels, and the Capitol rebels all have different goals and levels of commitment to the cause. President Coin (Leader of district 13) wanted to become president of whatever goverment got formed after the fall of the capitol and even took steps to assasinate Katniss in order to prevent her from swaying the poorer districts to another leader. Plutarch (effectively head of the Capitol Rebels) works with Coin and District 13 for most of the books. However upon her death, he seems pleased and quickly dumps district 13 in order to side with Paylor and help her become president, getting a position in her cabinet in return. District 2 which was far less mistreated, had a much smaller rebel group lead by Commander Lyme. The rebels in 2 struggled much more as many of their citizens sided with the capitol and required reinforcements from 13 in order to take the district. Despite this Lyme still clashed with Coin over strategies and refused to follow 13's plans. District 1 on the other hand, despite being richer and favored by the capitol sided with the rebels far earlier and where able to use thier industrial power to be one of the first districts to be freed from the capitol. District 8 was the first to rebel and was temporarily quite successful but was overwhelmed by capitol forces and along with the rest of the poorer districts became heavily reliant on support from district 13. However, by the time the capitol fell they had recovered greatly, and some rebels were willing to follow Paylor's orders over Coin's. After Coin's death the poorer districts where able to rally together and get Paylor elected president.
@James Tullos Thanks for bringing up anarchism.
The movement consistently gets their history essentially demolished by the powers that be who rewrite history to suit themselves...
its also due to that anarchism for a lot of people its hard to wrap thier heads around or is disgreed with at time vehemently , as well its it own thing in a way menaing it doesnt get the same attention as say soem branches of communism
@@Yingyanglord1 Yep.
A trilogy of videos that I've enjoyed a lot is this one:
ua-cam.com/video/JZ-utvfgK8Q/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/77GKgbUGJK0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/M6pysEKlg0Q/v-deo.html
Mind you, please do use some common sense when watching this.
The video is clearly partisan.
Not just towards the anarchist point of view vs other ideologies but also towards certain branches more so then others.
The videos *are* good.
But use some source criticism and cross reference the things covered with other sources.
Because it doesn't exist
@@longiusaescius2537 Because *what* doesn't exist?
@@longiusaescius2537 Anarchism as a ideology definitely exists, and it *has* been tried out and worked in some areas in Spain and Ukraine as well as smaller scale in many locations around the world, including France and Israel.
Unfortunately anarchist movements larger then individual city districts always end up being destroyed by political opponents.
Somebody speaking about anarchism? And not as a synonymous of chaos (anomie)?! Oh boy!
I know right, imagine being able to actually acknowledge that human beings can exist safely in the absence of a human invented institution
James is an anarchist if I'm not mistaken, so yeah.
@follow petitelordexx they said anarchism not libertarianism so I'm going to assume they're actually an anarchist not a neo-fuedalist
@follow petitelordexx ancaps are not real anarchists
YAY!
12:20 I had the suspicion for the longest time that you're into Kaiserreich, guess it's confirmed now.
I've been trying to figure out how to slap together my own story for a while now and these videos have been making it so much easier for me to find somewhere to start. Thank you.
"We are given no information on them what so ever." Than shows the Emperor of mankind, will someone needs to look up one of the many lore videos about the Imperium on UA-cam.
Revolts usually happens if the public can’t feed themselves.
"Don't spend weeks or months..."
Are you challenging me?
6:27 _The Roman Republic also existing because in part due to Lucius Junius Brutus, who is responsible for the expulsion of his uncle the Roman king Tarquinius Superbus after the suicide of Lucretia, which led to the overthrow of the Roman monarchy - thus becoming one of the two first consuls of the new Roman Republic in 509 BC._
(Consequently, Marcus Junius Brutus (the well known assassin of Julius Caesar) is related to Lucius Junius Brutus. This is in part due to the Oath of Brutus in which it is to never allow a king to rule Rome again.)
"There's a king who runs everything"
(Proceeds to show the dead emperor of an incredibly fleshed out, varied and decentralised government which has detailed the processes worlds, systems and sectors can be and are governed)
Dune does a great job with the opposing force to the monarch, with the Emperor and the Landsraad
"... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses."
In case you're here four years on; what's that quote from?
@@jimmyjohnson1870 A Roman poet named Juvenal
@@levitatingoctahedron922 Thank you for your time!
I already know how to flip the standard template of government conflict stories: The good empire vs the evil republic. 😂
I love nomadic societies. You can essentially do anything you possibly want with them.
I was ready for you to sprinkle in some anarchist theorie lol
Though I don't fully agree with it, the monarchist perspective does have a logic to it, since the skills required to become a democratic leader are completely irrelevant to those required to rule well (much like how any two professions have almost entirely unlinked skill sets) you will have rather than a class of professional leaders a class of professional campaigners. Faced with this option, the dice roll of good king/bad king can seem preferable to the apparent guarantee of a democracy producing a continuous set of subpar leaders.
Yeah, or something like Singapore which is a mix
Also, I am an 'anthropologist' who will get angry at you for using the term 'chiefdom', mostly because it is vastly over-applied. It's application is no where near as solidified as how you present it in this video, and in researching African history, I'll frequently find it applied to societies inwhich the use of the word does not follow your definition, or to societies inwhich we have no idea how leaders were selected (because too ancient; eg: A-Group Nubia). Just keep that in mind.
I mostly bring this up because this video presents the concept of 'chiefdom' as clearly defined and unbiased, when in reality it is far from that, and struggles from lots of academic bias, especially against societies of certain regions (ahem, africa. ahem, the americas.)
As a result, the word often forms a sort of arbitrary gate-keeping between 'advanced tribes' and 'true kingdoms', which really only serves to belittle complex societies, and is a remnant of far more... racist times.
I say this not to tear you or your videos apart, but mostly so that any viewer who happens to read the comments can be notified about this, since I find it to be pretty important information that was left out of the video due to (presumably) time constraints. If it was time constraints, I feel you mate. :(
Thank you.
Thanks!
Much appreciated, thank you.
Thank you! I was gonna comment something similar to this
Very good explanation
I loved your take on Anarchism, I think its a idear that is explored not that often and it can bring a nice touch to many settings also somthing like a counter revolution is an intersting idear let there be a successfull Anarchist Revolution but than the bad guys come back and the people struggel with fighting them and don't drivte them self in to a new dictatorship or somthing in this direction somthing like this could Bring a really new flavor to a overused trope like this
@juhead8222 because anarchy is simply a transitional period, not a state in itself
been playing a few RPG's lately, and I've gotta say that this video's made me appreciate the political bits of them even more.
There’s also the fact that copious descriptions of how Governments are run tend to be frowned upon so we just cut out the middle man and say: ‘King’.
I think Star Wars Rebels went a little bit into rebel infighting. There were some rebels with different fighting methods, and some who didn’t want to be part of any bit fight.
Thank you SO MUCH for recognizing anarchists and the impact that they've had on history. So many stories totally leave them out because they misunderstand the ideology, and then make rebels with half baked motivations and goals. Hopefully more people will learn about the impact anarchists have had and include them in stories. I know I will ;)
Oh, and I also just wanted to say that these worldbuilding videos are all amazing and have given me a lot to think about to improve the setting that I'm writing.
"An"coms are some of the most authoritarian and bloodthirsty people in history.
@@SL2797 can I have an example
Imagine this: the loyalists in a revolution *might actually think the government is in the right* !!! Sounds incredibly unrealistic, I know, but maybe--just maybe--it's worth a try.
(edit): On a different note, I'm currently working on a story that has a religio-feudal monarchy with a quasi-divine king literally descended from the kingdom's goddess and a demi-goddess in charge of a monolithic temple organisation who steers the whole state from behind-the-scenes-sort-of. It's the king's job to handle the everyday affairs of state, but he or she gets their legitimacy from the demi-goddess in charge of the temple. Although it's possible for the nobles to stand against the temple, it would take a lot of guts to do so considering the demi-goddess not only acts on behalf of the goddess who founded the kingdom, but that demi-goddess is also a genius with centuries of experience and a master arch-mage.
In the american revolution, alot of people actually did like Britan, but alot of people also just went with them because they wanted money, or they thought they would win and wanted to be on the winning side so they could get a better deal.
I really like this premise! I'd read that.
Damn I actually really like that idea
Another flaw I hate is that Rebels can do no harm as only the big bad Government are the ones who do it, in war, everyone's both an oppressor and oppressed, The government may commit a massacre to quell a riot but a rebel group may hang captured soldiers and loyalists outside their territories to scare their enemies, thing is, make them both a hero and antagonists of their own stories, like the good-willed but incompetent NCR, or the cruel but powerful Legion, people have ideals and most will fight for it, either by choice or by circumstances, they will do it and they will do it with any methods necessary.
For a great examples of how dirty civil wars can get highly recommend the Mexican Revolution. Just horrible, horrible acts of violence perpetrated by both sides of the conflict.
a video on governments that accurately portrays anarchism? fuck yeah!
I really needed a reason for the government to fall in my story. Thank you!
For worldbuilding, you can always have transitional oddities of government like Kaiserreich's Mongolia with Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, the Bloody Baron, acting as regent. Not only was he an outsider, but a Mongolphile and a wildcard that could bring about a second Mongol Empire... he can even declare himself the reincarnation of the Great Khan
I mostly like electorial monarchs aka line of succession where the king is the figure head and he relys on elected by the public officials to keep him informed that is a system I like.
Federal monarchies are also pretty good.
@@IkeOkerekeNews yeah but sometimes authors almost always make them way too authoritarian.
chad ganshirt Don’t forget from a narrative standpoint if something goes wrong it can be blamed entirely on the king by the actual officials.
@@JohnWilliams-wl9px true I am mostly talking about the book the merchants war sorry I can not specify that is the only part of the books I remember thx for the reply what is your fav government system
@@chadganshirt365
Probably due to the stigma the German Empire received after World War 1.
15:15 I was always debating about doing that, having serveral stories focused on loyalist BUT when I described my worlds to some folks, they said no one would really back it unless it's just those higher folks...
I tried changing their reasoning into being loyal- some simply not wanting conflict and thinking hat submissiveness helps (which after the rebellion it did because the rulers wanted to enforce the idea that they were the 'good guys') and some being loyal because even though they suffer they have seen the rebels as too destructive making life worst and all.
I had a few other reasons but was discouraged to keep going.
The thing about rebels not being united... Could be another reason why no attempt at revolution has been made in my story. The different secret groups, besides lacking communication and the indifference of the population and their bad geographic position, are now thanks to your video also militing for different goals, going from the right to educate their written language to the reducing of their working hours, from moderate to extrem. I can add it with a few paragraph here and there, that's what is great.
3:27 The pope used to be a political ruler too.
He still is, but only over a very small patch of land inside Rome.
@@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901
Source?
@@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901
Good evidence, send me the source when you can.
I mean he still is, he partakes in medatations and helps fund projects around the world.
I mean Pope Bendeict helped the USA and Cuba start diplomatic realations again and many Popes think they can solve the Israeli-Palastine conflict
I’d like to say that Blizzard’s Starcraft franchise has a very ornate but relatable “revolution” plot; by just following the Terran Campaigns:
SC1: local militia learns too much, gets penalized for doing a good deed and joins with a radical terrorist sect to avoid death or incarceration. Later engaging the existing confederated government in an insurgency turned civil war to finally overthrow it through a combination of having government staff go turn-coat and the use of WMDs. The WMDs causes the rebels to split and the dominant faction lets their charismatic leader to ascend to the throne as emperor and begin a campaign of hunting down his previous allies
SC1(BW): Raynors Raiders team up with the Dominion when superior forces from earth come to man-handle the colonies into submission, and with some outside help and a lot of cooperation drive them back and there’s a moment of peace
SC2: Raynors Raiders, after building up in relatively peaceful hiding, finally have enough resources and support to begin a campaign of overthrowing the dominion by turning the citizens against it, but eventually have to team up with them to stop an exterior threat
(I haven’t played the two expansion campaigns but I believe the Dominion crumbles for a lot of reasons so if someone who has played them could explain what happens next I’d appreciate it)
Dude, you're really itching this lifelong writing scratch of mine with these videos!!! I know I'm late to the channel but keep up the good work!!
07:11 Reminds me of a custom planet I'm making for a Battletech RPG. Since it's run by a mixed band of Inner Sphere Immigrants and former Clan Bondsmen out in the Periphery, the Vat-Born Humans (both scientist and warrior caste) demanded their own seperate legislative house to represent them in the lawmaking process instead of being mixed in with the "freebirths." Think of it as being akin to the British House of Nobles. The Freeborn Nobles (Both regular nobles/aristocrats and warriors that happen to have aristocratic ancestry) that moved in from the Inner Sphere also demanded their own similar houses separate from the "commoners." This further slows down the legislative Process as there are now Three Houses a bill has to pass through before it even becomes a law.
One form of government that I find is very rare in almost all genres are elected monarchies or appointed representatives voting for the head of state. The Holy Roman Empire or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are real-world examples of this form of government and even today Germany's head of state still only elected by members from their parliament and still it rarely ever shows up.
@Kevin Warburton, I wouldn't say dictatorship since all those nations still have to go through parliament before anything can be done.
Thank you for the mention of anarchists.
One thing that also is very interesting and under-utilized is the idea of imperial colonies. The conflict between the ruling minority and the culturally distinct mainland and their technological and cultural differences is very unique.
4:38 Yes, but she still could have been handled better. Her arc was rushed like the rest of the show.
Also, why did you zoom in on Prince Philip like that? You Mae him seem like some sinisterly powerful autocrat rather than, you know, the guy married to the ACTUAL monarch.
I though the same thing. It was kinda funny though
Jonathan Campbell Yeah our issue isn't where she ended up, it's how she ended up here, for most of the show she was slightly more Ruthless then average rulers at time while not ever reaching Boltons level of fucked up, yet she suddenly became the a genocidal nutcase on a dime because...??? "There's only two episodes left and we need to make this ending shocking for the sake of shock."
@@InquisitorThomas the worst part is that it's been confirmed in interviews that that is GRRM's original planned ending, that he's you to stick to it with the books and that he even advised the showrunners to do it. Even if the books ever were finished in the next thousand years, I fear they're still doomed
@@Rynewulf how can you have so little faith? That man could make flushing an errant turd left from the first flush an exhilarating tale of adversity
4:00 i think a sci-fi hereditary monarchy could make sense, but there would have to actually be something special about that family not just propaganda saying there's something special.
Maybe make the family the product of some eugenic breeding program? Or have them be rare alien hybrids? You'd need to justify it, to maintain it in a sci-fi setting.
Worthless Winner Sci-fi setting and fantasy settings you have more room to justify it unlike one with a more realistic setting.
As you could legitimately have rulers who are descendants from gods.
@@JohnWilliams-wl9px - the best thing a monarchy in a realistic setting could do is base itself off real examples in the modern world. The more realistic alternative history scenarios could also be inspiration. They seem to rely on complex international relationships - playing big non-monarchies off against each other. This is a bit too complex for a lot of books, especially if a benefit of monarchy of those books is that it's simple.
Few people died over throwing the Tzar. His entire family was murdered AFTER he abdicated the thrown.
Something notable: The Bolsheviks were perfectly happy to keep the royal family alive and in captivity - they only had them executed when it became clear the city they were being held in was about to fall to the monarchists. Why? Because if they left even one member of the royal family alive, they could be recaptured by the monarchists and placed back on the throne as a rightful heir. Killing off the entire royal family nipped the monarchist problem in the bud.
This is useful to think about - often in fiction, when the evil king/queen is overthrown, they alone suffer retribution for their crimes. However, if they have any family at all, any one of their living relatives could make a claim on the throne. That’s why if you’re overthrowing a monarchy it’s not enough to just take out the monarch - you have to take out the whole bloodline.
Hmm I might post this as a comment on it’s own
@@SirBenjiful I already understand the justification for ruthlessly slaughtering children, but thanks.
Hermit T Mog it’s not a justification, it’s an explanation. I’m not a bolshevik.
@@SirBenjiful Like I said, I understand the why. Saying they had to because is justification. Also there were nobles who survived in exile that could have been installed, it would not be the first dynasty change in history. Obviously the will for monarchy was broken. The murder of the children was a cowardly act that they justified the same way you did. If any survive, the monarchy could, possibly, maybe somehow (very unlikely) rise again.
One thing that's annoying about the dystopia genre is how it's almost always set in a post-apocalyptic world to avoid having to talk about governments and cultures outside the one that's being focused on.
Things people forget about absolutism is that it sorta only occurred after renaissance and not during Middle Ages.
Other thing, only a very small percentage of a population take upon arms to fight. Even 20% of it is a stretch. Most people don’t want to shed blood, neither theirs or from others.
Last thing is that the historical revolutions hardly ever were started or headed by the poor and popular, they were actually a movement by learned men, merchants, smaller nobles and the alike. Even Robin Hood was a noble before and after the story.
I came up with a massive space empire a long time ago, that started with one colony ship, but never really fleshed out its government. Here's what I have in mind:
Civilian ships tend to have their crews divided into three departments: the deck department, who see to the ship's mission, the engineering department, who maintain the ship, and the stewardship department, who maintain the crew. That roughly corresponds to cities being zoned for commercial, industrial, and residential.
There's an emperor who is nominally regarded as a god, and who strictly regulates logistics, but has little real power beyond that, and a military dictatorship who pay lip-service to the emperor but mostly ignore him.
This seems like it's leaning toward a caste system, with a state religion taking over where the deck crew left off, the military coming out of the engineering department, and a diet that oversees civic matters coming out of the stewardship department.
Its usefull to think of societies as multi cell organisms that developed through historic imput.
May I ask a few questions?
So at first why did they replicate the order from the colony ship to the society? Was knowlege about political theory opressed? Who was the first emperor and how did he come to fill this role? Didnt the other casts ever rebell? How was this rebellion oppressed? How did the supposed divine emperor loose his power? Is this an elective or heteditary post? Is cast membership a genetic or a hereditary or an education-based trait? Is there any social mobility between the casts or is it outlawed, what happens to the people who break these rules? Is there a certified code of law or a group of priests or just military command? Who is the real power, a military council? What keeps the "crew" together, a foreign hostile enviroment- how do loyalists justify their stance? How does that look like in reality? How are detractors from the system punished? Is there illegal cultural imagery connected to previous rebellions? No outside contact?
A few questions that might help you flesh that idea out a bit.
Using hoi4 Kaiserreich mod as an example of governments, lovely :)
To add a point as well, not all parts of an empire are ruled the same way. So the British Empire ruled India, different to Canada, different to South Africa, they took into account the local culture and beliefs. They also changed how they ruled empire after the loss of the 13 Colonies.
Great definitive list!!
The targaryens are in charge because dragons, and they are still in charge because dragons, and when they lost there dragons, well lets not talk about that bit
Im probably the only one who likes the idea of Phantom Menace being about politics, even if there are several issues. I get that for most people Star Wars is about battles and atmosphere, but I still like to see the universe fleshed out.
The prequels is not perfect
But it does get unnecessary hate
It's also weird that planets in science fiction so often have one government. It's understandable because it's simpler and a planet can be the equivalent of a country, but uniting the globe is very difficult.
it would be one thing if the government in question was like the UN or EU. where most of the governments are their own individual countries, but they also have some representation in a world wide overarching body, with representation being delt with individually by country with how representatives are chosen.
in my sci fy universe im making the galactic government is based on this, with 3 different houses, with different amounts of representatives per house (one is planet based, with one representative per planet, one is population base, with each system getting representation based on total population per planet in a system, so individual planets in a system do get some representation, and a 1+cabnet system, based loosly on the Soviet system, where the representative that actually attends meetings acting more as a way to let everyone know how the cabinet voted. with each system getting only one vote in the last house, and having as many people in the cabnet as they want, but it is typically just 1-2 people per planet)
Yooo ima use these things in my world also I am gonna make my own kind of government so thanks for the inspiration man.
Also you said not to detail everything but ima do it any way I mean I did it with the military system so ima do it here to
It's the "Bye" at the end for me.
There was actually a form of monarchy that was practiced in Rome for hundreds of years where the emperor was adopted into the royal family and selected as the heir, rather than traditional hereditary system
I was too lazy to make countries for a fantasy world I was working on, so I just made up some kind of mix between anarcho-capitalism and feudalism
Constitutional Monarchies are awesome and we need more of them in fantasy.
One thing I will say of anarchism is that, it often has significant effects but then doesn't actually take power. Instead, a more pragmatic, but less utopian, authoritarian system like capitalism or socialism is put in place.
In Ireland our war of independence was followed pretty quickly by a civil war over the treaty that ended it.
I love the fact that Padme was an elected official.
@Kevin Warburton It's been a while since I watched them, but I'm pretty sure she had power. If she was a ceremonial figure, why have an electoral roll for her position?
I'm not sure where you got the idea that she was just a figure head. She ran a campaign, won, and ruled. So there were other politicians? That doesn't detract from her position.
@Kevin Warburton I mean in TPM it seems like shes the one in charge. She's being asked to surrender, shes going to the senate, shes leading the assault on the planet. You wouldnt see a figurehead like Queen Elizabeth doing that.
E Z
Just imagine the worst people possible doing all the worst things possible and calling it justice.
Covers all governments from start to finish.
The Hunger Games revolutionaries did not get along. At all. The leader for one of the faction's tried to install herself as the new dictator after all.
One book that I found particularly interesting in dealing with this aspect is the
Legend of the Galactic Heroes. It’s the only novel that I’ve read, which explored the idea how a supposedly democratic government became corrupted by money and political struggle, leading it to betray its own people, and how a military committee failed to save the country because they too, got corrupted by power during the process. Eventually it was the empire with strong Militarism won the heart of the people.
Nice
This I’ve considered on my current project especially the smaller factions and the last point you’ve made
“INUKTITUT SOCIALIST REPUBLIC” okay
This is one of my greatest weaknesses as a dungeonmaster, so your thoughts were INCREDIBLY helpful. Thank you!
3:29 - someone forgot that Pope is at the same time King of Papal State.
Yep! And he still is. King of Vatican and the Pope are two different entities but still the same person.
@@oskarileikos well no its a dictatorship with mixed oligarchy
@@Dragfos that's not what I was talking about but Vatican is an absolute monarchy, it's not the same as dictatorship even though in practice it kind of is
lol, that shot of shooting down a plane with an arrow. XD Like breaking a house with a pebble.
Fun fact, canada was technically a constitutional monarchy till we got our "independence" from the crown in 1981. Basically we make our own laws and rules, but the queen, or i guess king now, or with permission the attourney general, can shut it down and say no to something being proposed. I put independence in quotes because for some reason, its still that way.
They say its not a constitutional monarchy but the king can still shut stuff down? If we werent still tied to the monarchy, why do we have a prime minister, not a sovereign head of state like a president chancellor, or our own king/queen?
Monarchies are attractive because they’re stable and efficient. Plus, if anything bad happens, just blame the king. No complicated bickering of over payed senators, no wild instability of anarchy or dictatorships, no mad demands of self proclaimed prophets, and no petty squabbles of foppish nobles. Just a sovereign and their people.
I think the petty squabbles of nobles are inevitable in a monarchy, given that the nobility rules directly under the king. Even an absolute monarchy tends to have its power diluted among different hierarchies of nobles
Arbaaz Shaw That’s why you tax them too heavily for them to form armies.
@4:38
I don't think that everyone is really upset about it ending that way, it's more about how the series failed to really set it up. If you want a good example of seeing a leader evolve into a tyrant look at Palpatine, we know he's evil but he plays up the benevolent politician role at the beginning and slowly strips away any and all pretense by the end. Daenarys spent most of the series coming across as learning from her families mistakes, after all she was initially a victim of the consequences of those mistakes, she would find solutions to problems that balanced her ambition with her kinder nature. So when she decided to turn heel it felt way too sudden and contradicts the character growth the previous seasons spent so much time on.
I know you clarified in text, but it bears repeating that the divine right of kings is an early modern political theory, not a medieval one. It is when kings centralize their power, strip the nobility of their independent rights and create a middle class bureaucracy that is completely dependent on them, and when Protestantism/Humanism (both dependent on the return to the original texts, be they Classical thought and law, which ascribe a coherent legal code for all rather than a patchwork of power, and the Bible which in Paul justifies the political will as revelation of the divine will) that this theory crops up. Since in our post-modern minds this is almost a contradiction, we tend to push this political theory further into the past.
3:24 you do realise that the Pope IS the combined role of king and pope. The king of the Vatican and the pope of the Vatican are 2 different things and happen to be held by the same person.
Eclipse Phase does a fantastic job of this.
I was recently reading the first book of the lightbringer series and its interestening to think about stuff like this and be suprised when the religious ruler/figurehead is basically just a puppet or just basically someone who doesnt really have power but potentially could be dangerous. details like that makes the difference between telling a regular heroes journey story and making something truly unique by still being a compelling heroes journey story.
Note also that even in Mediaeval Europe feudalism with serfs wasn't the norm always, in Scandinavia peasants have always mostly owned their own land and in my own country, Sweden, the monarchy wasn't necessarily even hereditary until the 1500s and we've always had a sort-of-parliament called Riksdag with the four estates of Nobles, Priests, Burghers, and Peasants being represented
I would make up a new form of goverment like a monarchic hereditary dictatorship or a feudal stratocracy
Check out the German empire if you want to see a modern monarchy
"modern"
In my book, there are several rebels who fight because they enjoy killing and want an excuse to do so.
Ive always thought wouldnt rebellionism attract people who naturally like to rebel from the laws of the land even the basic ones, and rebels would take almost anyone
Another very interesting form of government may also be Corporation controlled governments, similar to the Various European East India Companies of the 17th and 18th centuries.
Funnily enough the factionalism is a main reason the big rebellion in my backstory failed. Thousands of rebel groups, numbering millions worldwide, but too many of them disagree on what comes after the war.
Statelessness is based.
With a profile pic like that, I should have expected a comment like that.
Don't take this the wrong way. I do not say that you should change your political views.
I just noticed that your profile pic and comment has a connection.
I actually have a idea of a government where there is many Monarch and these Monarchs would vote for a High Monarch. The Airs and Possible Airs of the Monarchs would be rise to act be the next Monarchs, since those who are running the High Monarch come from the these Monarchs.
Sounds like an aristocracy with special titles.
Well, actually thats just aristocracy lol