Best Feudal/Fantasy Government?

[Zardnaar]

Then that is the best, or at least the most stable which could be argued the best for the commoners.

Probably the worst system. It lasted so long primarily due to other factors imho
Wealth, location etc.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Elective parliamentary monarchy, probably.

I use it in a few places in my homebrew settings. Basically you’ve got a king or queen (it’s fantasy, why have all the same flaws and idiocy of our world in every fantasy world?), and something like a Scandinavian “Thing” with a bigger Althing. Local Things elect voices at the Althing. The Althing has the power to elect the monarch, and to depose them. There is even a god who bad kings are sacrificed to, if they’re bad enough.

It’s very much Medieval in general idea, being based on Medieval Scandinavia, but I’m not worried about how exactly accurate it is.

 

[Zardnaar]

Anything new know more about the Venetian Republic Doge system?

They lasted a long time and I don't recall any massive succession wars although the Republic participated in the usual fun and games.

 

[MGibster]

Best for who? For your average peasant, I'm thinking they want a government that's stable, where the rule of law is respected even when it comes to lords, one that is powerful enough to prevent invasions, and that does place burdensome taxes on me. As far as types of governments, what do I care? As a villein, it's not like I get a vote.

 

[Mercurius]

Yeah, I'd want to know more about what you mean by "best." Most accurate to Medieval Europe? Best for citizens? And in terms of what? Economically? Quality of life? Psycho-spiritual well-being? Etc.

I think it comes down to what you're going for. Even we wizened fantasy fans have a kind of subconscious assumption that fantasy = magical Medieval Europe, when it could be any number of things....not just Europe, and not just Medieval. And perhaps even more key to my point, not just "Earth analogous."

And of course there's also different factors of civilization, that don't have to correlate with how things have unfolded in our world. Maybe a society is premodern in terms of technology, but more advanced in terms of government (or vice versa, ala His Dark Materials).

 

[deganawida]

Best for who? For your average peasant, I'm thinking they want a government that's stable, where the rule of law is respected even when it comes to lords, one that is powerful enough to prevent invasions, and that does place burdensome taxes on me. As far as types of governments, what do I care? As a villein, it's not like I get a vote.

Villein you may be (and me, too), but I think that's the way most people feel even today.

 

[Zardnaar]

Best for who? For your average peasant, I'm thinking they want a government that's stable, where the rule of law is respected even when it comes to lords, one that is powerful enough to prevent invasions, and that does place burdensome taxes on me. As far as types of governments, what do I care? As a villein, it's not like I get a vote.

It's your opinion whatever you think is best.

Stability would be a

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Anything new know more about the Venetian Republic Doge system?

They lasted a long time and I don't recall any massive succession wars although the Republic participated in the usual fun and games.

Venice’s power was focused in a single city-state, where powerful nobles vied for control. This is actually not that different from other medieval urban centres - even London was effectively a “republic”. Republican mode of government couldn’t function outside of the urban fringe until the early modern era, due to a variety of reasons.

I imagine magic would change things, depending on how widespread it is.

 

[TerraDave]

Ottoman succession was brutal and they stopped doing it downside was several centuries of incompetent rulers.

Very different times.

Did not see it spelled out in the thread: Ottoman succession was an allowed window of fratricide: surviving brother wins-Darwinistic, and eliminated rivals in the wings. (In some cases loosers were allowed to live as prisoners in the Harem)

As touched on upthread, succession was the basis for centuries of conflict in England and France, and of course led to a 100 year war between the two.

Presumably also the source of conflict in many other places. If the sovereign has lots of power, they can bend the law to intervene in the succession. And others will bend it to get the job. If you are figurehead in a constitutional monarchy, then it should be smoother. BUT, for example even in 20th century Britain, it was not in fact entirely smooth. (But at least UK did not have a pro-Nazi king).

BONUS: Crusaders attack on Constantinople was linked to a succession dispute.

From a game point of view, this is probably all good, as it leads to conflict and drama.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

The basic premise of the thread assumes the Middle Ages were a lot more modern then they are. The modern age is full of formal, written constitutions that clearly limit and delineate the powers of individual leaders, and have court systems with authority to rule on what ambiguities remain. In the middle ages there generally was an idea that customary law and arrangements, religious mandates, or (in some contexts) the Roman legal tradition could sometimes, limit the laws and powers of a king, but where, when, which, and how these governed was all pretty amorphous, and fundamentally just came down to rhetorical arguments in a system where real power was about who held loyalties and how effectively they could exploit them. Partly this stems from the fact that medieval people thought that in their whole tangle of laws, customs, kings, and traditions there was the hand of God pulling the strings, and hence that there was some correct way for things to be beyond whatever legal arrangement man had happened to have settled upon. Hence if one heir was manifestly more suited than another the medieval mind was willing to accept that some "authority" must support their claim, and it must be the correct one.

In Westeros the tradition of the Iron Throne was male preference primogeniture, possibly strictly male primogeniture but even that had not yet been fully tested (can a daughter succeed instead of a brother?). This sort of amorphous succession was actually pretty common in the medieval period. In House of the Dragon we have a King trying first to clarify, then to set a new succession order. At first he is just clarifying, establishing that, with no direct male heir his daughter can inherit, which is settling an as yet unsettled question of the succession laws (something he is almost certainly a king of sufficiently respected power to do). But then when male heirs emerge he stands by her claim and insists on strict primogeniture over male preference, which is a clear breach with tradition, yet still possibly within his power, and one must be careful when one questions a king. While this latter choice is one virtually no European nobles and monarchs made, it is not completely beyond what would be considered. The circumstances of her already being long established as heir, being an adult groomed for the inheritance, being married to another claimant, and the alternative male heir being unsuitable makes it substantially more believable. But ultimately the king's power over his own succession is questionable, has unclear limits, and really comes down to what people are willing to do after he passes.

So to answer the question, I prefer a society without this fundamental ambiguity over what the succession laws are or how they can be changed. Having a clear rule is more important than having a good one, because all systems will give you sizeable helpings of great, mediocre, and terrible leaders, but ambiguity also gives you lots of succession wars between them.

For fiction and roleplaying games, however, I prefer the messy medieval succession ambiguities because they create lots of plot twists and interesting and/or gameable content.