When putting together
the political structure of a fictional country, the default setting
for fantasy is a kingdom, for obvious reasons. People know, more or
less, what a kingdom is and how it works. But history does furnish us
with some other interesting forms of government/inheritance that
could be of use in fantastical writing.
One of the most
unusual, which I read about in Vanished Kingdoms by Norman Davies,
was the system used by Montenegro prior to the end of World War One
(when it got shafted by Serbia and was betrayed by its allies, sadly
including the UK). The country was ruled by a prince-bishop. Not only
that, the nephew of the ruler was the chap who inherited. That sounds
very odd, but it does have an advantage. The ruler’s brother will
not seek to claim the throne, because his son will inherit. The
ruler’s son will not, but his
son might. The zig-zag, as it were, inheritance could
actually be more stable than the more obvious eldest son model used
in traditional monarchy.
Rome’s
emperor was often the son of his predecessor, but this was never the case during the Golden Age of
Imperial Rome. From Nerva
to Marcus Aurelius (who buggered it up by letting his psychopathic
son Commodus get the job, after Lucius Verus) the emperor adopted an
heir. It worked rather well. This period saw an end to the civil wars
that had preceded and would succeed it, and the extent of the empire
grew to its largest size.
Reincarnation is used
to determine the Dalai Lama. It can take a few years for the
successor to a departed Dalai Lama to be found. The People’s
Republic of China (which is in control of Tibet, of course) has
stated that it has supreme authority on the selection of the next
Dalai Lama, which may make things rather messy.
A slight twist on
monarchy is the diarchy (two kings). In a small way, England had this
in 1689 when King William and Queen Anne were both monarchs in their
own right. However, Sparta had two kings as a matter of course.
Naturally, there’s scope for regal rivalry, but it also enables
supreme authority to be in two places at once (as per the two consuls
of Rome).
My knowledge of
Renaissance Venice is not fantastic, but the power of the Doge and
its shadowy council of wealthy chaps [not its official title] was
significant. The Doge Enrico Dandolo was instrumental in the Fourth
Crusade attacking Byzantium, which had the short term impact of
improving Venice’s power significantly, and the long term impact of
bringing down the Eastern Roman Empire and allowing the Ottomans to
overrun half of Europe. The Doge was elected but usually served for
life, although his executive power was diminished later on. Wealthy
individuals formed a sort of aristocracy within Venice, and they had
the real power for much of the republic’s life (it ended with
Napoleon’s conquest).
The Ghibellines and the
Guelfs [which sound a shade Red Dwarf] were the supporters of the
Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope, respectively. Centuries ago, the
Pope was not merely a spiritual leader, but one who also held
temporal power. For a time, the Pope also had a dominant moral
position, approving (or not) marriages and playing a critical
diplomatic role to foster peace (or not) in Europe. The Pope was, as
now, chosen by the college of cardinals.
So, there we are. A
mixture of gaining power through election, inheritance, adoption and
reincarnation, and roles that mingle the spiritual with the temporal.
There’s nothing wrong with kings, but other supreme leadership
roles are available.
Thaddeus
A bit unfair to mention the Sack of Constantinople without mentioning the Massacre of the Latins.
ReplyDeleteAfter the city was reclaimed in the 13th century?
ReplyDeleteThere was, I think, a massacre, although it was preceded by the Latins acting more like robber-barons than governors. Sadly, that sort of thing was rather commonplace at that time.