Lords & Kings -- The Rise of the Few over All Others
Now we come to the end of our societal evolution on the path to the Middle Ages with its kings, infrastructures, mammoth cities & stone walls.
It may seem unusual for the two previous eras (see P1 & P2) to come into being or remain in those peaceful states for long. This is likely due to the conflation of our (skeletal) history of the Ancient, Bronze, & Early Iron Ages, where we learned that once conquest began somewhere, it would soon spread to every corner of the accessible world (a la the Roman Empire).
But in the Fantasy settings we’re exploring, the physical world can be mammoth, many times the size of our Earth, filled with grave dangers that make exploration unwise, and therefore societal compartmentalization can be a common phenomenon. This allows us to easily (and logically) dodge the problem of “inevitable invasion” and the subsequent leaders, lords, and kings controlling the people.
So then, how could a society first develop the notion of a ‘lord’ or ‘king’? While there have always been bullies who cower others, this doesn't really lead to them becoming a lord of the land when societies are peaceful. Remember that the land in the earlier stages of development was wide open. People cannot have conflict if they are not interacting. But in this stage, the population is rising, and villages are naturally bumping into each other more often. That kind of dominance comes from two main sources...
Greed & Violence, the Creation of Lords
If this society remains free of invasion the first lords may emerge slowly as part of a festering greed fed by ego (& spite).
The specifics for each society will be random & unchartable. Perhaps it begins with a mundane occurrence, like generational discord or by angrily reacting to someone else’s injustice. It could be as small as a village becoming enraged at a moved border-stone (marking land ownership). Now that more people are living in close proximity, more conflicts will naturally rise. Whatever started it, one family will try asserting dominance, and this can lead to violence. Perhaps a brawl led to deaths. Once this is observed, the notion of competition & violence seeps into the minds of the people.
Given enough time (which could be decades or centuries), through a mixture of elements, one man could be the commonly accepted ‘lord/chief/headman’, etc., who lives in the largest town. This likely carries the undercurrent of (real or feared) violence. He & his family vie with/replace the authority of village elders in that town. Eventually, this lord may impose a tiny (at first) “trade tax”, which could be a scoop of grain or a half-dozen eggs, in order to trade in the marketplace. This would be used to justify building a large fence and eventually establishing the first market “guards” if thieving has repeatedly occurred. Given time, this lord/family becomes known in a radius as important & influential.
Pass the generations in this fashion, perhaps even centuries. If the population continues to thrive, it will of course spread, and develop more towns (because of trade), and the lord (a descendant of the original lord) has extended his dominance to the other towns.
How much control/authority does this kind of lord have? Hardly any by our modern standards. The lord is not someone that people must run to in order to make decisions or ask permission to do things in their village. Any lord (at this early stage) who attempted to assert that kind of control would find that the population would quickly oust him. The lord’s family is the one that has more authority than anyone else in the town(s), but their authority doesn’t bleed over into personal and village-life. Remember, there is no army, no ‘officials/officers’, no ‘nobles’, etc. Aside from their tiny tax on trade in the towns, these lords (unless they’re bullies) control nothing, and attempting to strong-arm people can easily backfire on them.
Villagers don’t consider themselves to be part of a ‘nation’ or ‘civilization’ at this stage. I easily think of myself as being “in Indiana, in the USA.” But while of course, each village has a name, these villagers simply think, “This is our home, and those around us are our neighbors.” The lords/chiefs of the trading towns are known to them, but going to trade is just a small element in their lives, making the lords virtually irrelevant to the most of them. 99% of people are still living as they have for millennia: Gathering food, creating/maintaining stability, & procreating.
Mass Violence from “Outsiders”
Of course, everything I’ve described so far assumes that this culture has not been infiltrated by another, very different one which has already societally evolved passed this.
Mass violence accelerates the emergence of lords much faster than the avarice of a family within that culture. In a distant region, similar lords will eventually arise, either through the same process or (far more likely) the rumor of the first ‘lord’ has reached the adjacent lands, and the idea of dominance eventually tempts someone into the same maneuver. Cultural ideas always spread, especially the ones perpetuating greed. Perhaps they invade immediately, or perhaps they aren't instantly ruthless & violent.
But the avarice of lords mingled with the right circumstances can push them into violence. One way or another, raiding may begin, and (regardless of how small-scale it began) large-scale violence can ensue. Once this happens many times, the notion of a “unified people” grows stronger, for they are at odds with “those evil people over there”. Frequency & degrees of violence vary, but when the scale is huge, the region changes for everyone.
Large Threats are the King-Makers
When these threats become real on a huge scale, a society either radically changes or is conquered/scattered. Life formerly had very little violence from others, and now it becomes a very real & immanent reality because large groups of men are coming to kill & steal everything. Nightmarish.
If the attacked civilization is still sparsely populated, spread out, etc., they may not survive the attack. If a peaceful, tiny population of, say, 10 villages (totaling ~700 people) were to be attacked by even as few as 20 battle-trained, armed (esp. mounted) men, the villagers could lose all their possessions and many lives. Remember that the 10 villages are usually several miles away from each other, and cannot quickly group together to defend themselves. Also remember that they are totally unprepared for this kind of violence. Battle-hardened, ruthless marauders with swords could easily kill few men at a time. The real prize for invaders will be the towns, where the best goods can be stolen. If towns survive the initial attacks, the lords will usually rise to rally the people in defense. It is this dynamic which permanently changes their society.
AD Britain’s history shows us this clearly. 5th-6th C. Saxon & again in 8th-9th C. Norman invasions trigger drastic changes throughout the land. A true crisis exists, forcing them to either work together or be conquered/slain. Therefore, the existing lords become focal points of leadership (whether they’re well-suited or not). At this point, everyone grabs whatever passes for a weapon, gathers together, and fights the invading force.
Based on the size/strength of the invaders, a single town’s consolidated force may defeat them or get wiped out. In larger invasions, multiple neighboring lords may be forced to all work together, gathering their first real army. For the first time in their history, therefore, people from 20-60 miles away are united under a single cause and lord.
Circumstances may lead to a sporadic repetition of this coordination for decades or centuries. But ultimately, within this loose union of towns & lords, a single leader will emerge, a “lords’ lord”, the first ‘king’. Note, that this will only evolve if the threats of major violence (real or imagined) is pressing for the population.
The natural state is for people to have their village-life & autonomy, but if people believe that a king (along with the taxations, etc. which accompany him) is now needed to stay alive, they will accept it.
‘Towns’ (coming from an Old English word meaning, ‘enclosure’) now earn their names, for walls must be built where none were truly needed before. As the generations pass, if the threats remain constant, the town’s (and king’s) power will grow, both practically & symbolically. The invaders don’t necessarily have to come every year, but as long as marauders show up every few years and slaughter a village here & there, the belief in the need for a unified army (& therefore, king) will grow. Additionally the old habit of your village being in the place of your choosing, in the wild with no other villages in sight, gets damaged. Now everyone has learned that dwelling too far from the towns is dangerous. Therefore, as the threats rise, people (starting with survivors from destroyed villages) will relocate nearer to the walled towns, for this has become the only real hope in desperate times. “Safety in numbers” is transforming the entire society. This further strengthens the kings as well. More people means more work, more trade, & more control for the king (by whatever title may evolve in that region).
The Path to Feudalism
The old market-towns will grow tenfold over the passing generations, with greater walls, more paid-guards, more weapons, and more stink. More luxury goods are sold, and more precious metals are excavated, smelted, used, & exchanged. These cities are filled with places of entertainment and luxury for those who will pay. Thieving becomes much more common, as does prostitution and violence.
More decades must pass in this fashion, until the notion of lords & kings is embedded in the society. If violent outsiders return, especially in large numbers, kings may extend their power in more permanent ways. Thus, feudalism.
Essentially, the people in this land changed because they considered themselves to be under the shadow of annihilation. They therefore accepted the king’s edict that a portion of every village & town’s goods are to be given to the king, whether an attack is coming this year or not, whether the villagers actually go to the markets or not. These taxes go towards the payment of full-time, seriously trained warriors, who serve as the backbone of their army. They also pay for the large amount of metal weapons & armor needed to compete with the enemies of the world. Additionally, villagers accept that every able-bodied man must answer the call when needed, even if they must march away to fight in an area they’ve never heard of before. The people have shifted into the paradigm of being in a ‘kingdom’. Without the perceived threat they would have never made the shift, but once it happened, it became "the way of the world" and their descendants accepted it.
Infrastructures now evolve, enforced practices that serve the kingdom instead of merely one's village. Therefore, people throughout the land are appointed to serve the king's interests & edicts -- the nobles.
Many more years must pass in this fashion for the development of classes to be observed. While there were always people who possessed more than others, now a small number of wealthy elite stand apart. These are commonly blood-relatives of the king, rich merchant-families who have grown significantly more wealthy by virtue of trade in the cities, or warrior-families who distinguished themselves as superb victors of the battlefield. Under the new social structure, these ‘nobles’ are treated with deference by the commoners. As time passes, the distance grows ever greater, culminating in their legal superiority over “the peasants”.
(Yes, this is a dark version of the process, but it’s also the most likely. Power corrupts, and these are usually people who crave power over others.) Ultimately, each king & his lords recognize the stunning amount of wealth & authority the people of the land have given them because of the threats, & they see no reason to let that end. Now, whether an enemy army invades or not, everyone is habituated into taxation & obedience. The king is this distant, powerful figure who controls the land. The nobles have well-armed & armored warriors surrounding them. The villagers may come to hate them, but they have become powerless to change things. This is their reality now, & they have no memory of their ancestors’ independence.
But, of course, there are many ways that we can create benevolent rulers, with or without the tools of the Fantasy genre. It could be the case that a moral & wise leader arose against the threat of mass-violence, and then relinquished such authority after the threat had been eliminated.
Using Fantasy can make this even easier. Perhaps a deity clearly ordained a person to be king or queen over the land, and that god’s benevolence saturates their rule. This ties in nicely with many Ancient & Medieval myths -- "The Divine Right of Kings".
So, understanding the different eras from history is useful for the creation of our different Fantasy settings. We need not default to the High Middle Ages. In fact, we can have rich, deeply interesting settings in the backdrop of the far Ancient world, where no one is considered to be a ruler for thousands of square miles. Across the expanse of your world, assuming that you have many societies be compartmentalized, you can also have some cultures be in the Middle Ages, while others are Neolithic. There's no reason to impose uniformity on them. These kinds of changes can be not only novel but offer the players opportunities to stretch their role playing skills by forcing their minds away from conventional assumptions.
Comments