Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eben" data-source="post: 144549" data-attributes="member: 1379">Although I agree there are certain similarities, I think we should be wary about comparing medieval cities to the true city-states in the ancient mediteranean. Medieval cities had their own dynamic, which lead to greater economical power. This power enabled them to force their feudal lords to grant the city certain rights (taxation, militia, justice, government and in a few cases even the right to mint coins.) These charters were sometimes forced upon the lords, but in a few cases also used to extend the lords influence over territories that used to be semi-independant. But we also see that lords will try their best to end the charter. Thats why these charters were mostly kept safe inside large stone (=fire-proof!) towers. (In Flanders we call those a "belfort".)The cities in Flanders are an excellent example of this, as willpax noted. Viking raids in the 10th century made that the French king was unable to actually govern this region, so the local lords became autonomous (count of Fladers, Duke of Brabant, Prince-bishop of Liège, ...) To retain that autonomy he needed the support of the cities. When the French king manages to "reconquer" Flanders, we see that most of those cities lose those rights and some are even forced to dismatel their city walls. (I believe Ypres is one of those.)Later, Flanders falls in Hapsburg hands (the Burgundians and later the Spanish) and we see that the new lords again grants many of those cities new rights. The reason being: they need the support and the taxes to hold their empire together.So while cities were an important force in medieval times, they were never truly independent", they had priviliges, granted by a lord, and could only exist as "free" entities in a power vacuum.Hellenistic city-states ("Poleis") were autonomous. There was nothing higher than the city in juditional terms. A city-state might have been governed by a tyrant (Syracuse in Sicily for example), but he would still be subject to the city. Rome had laws that said a dictator could be appointed in times of need. But this person in which resided all the power did not have the power to fundamentally alter the rights of the citizens (wheras a medieval lord did have this right, in theory at least.) Rome did not have an emperor until the Senate made it so.While the Greeks fought many wars amongst themselves, they never truely conquered as we understand it. Even the colonies they founded in Sicily, Italy, France and Asia minor were never considered as being part of the state. Those became in effect new city-states that had religious ties with the mother city, but nothing more.Rome changed all this gradually, but for a long time, at the heart of the Empire was the city of Rome itself. During the empire, the gradual influx of "barbarians" (germans) into the Roman population changed even this.So if you want to use the concept of an independant city in your fantasy world, think about what law makes the city independant from the surrounding nations. Why is it independant (tactical position: island, mountain,...;magical, divine, ... the city-state Mayenne in Robert Jordans Wheel of Time series would be a well thought of example) and why is it governed by such fundamentally different laws than the neighbouring lands.Dark Sun, with is biblical city states, was an interesting stetting in this respect.Still reading this? Congratulations, I hope I made some sense along the way.</blockquote>

Verification