Strange women lying in ponds may be no basis for a system of government, but Dashlane is a good basis for moving about online >>> www.dashlane.com/hellofutureme + get 10% off with my link. Stay nerdy! ~ Tim
Unfortunately, she's getting on in years, so they don't do much anymore besides project little red dots that her pet corgies chase around. Also can blind aircraft.
@@kelnmiirkageoni1667 I believe it's a reference to EUIV, a game where monarchs are given a score out of 6 for admin, Diplo and military points, which is also the amount of those points you get a month. 0/1/0 is an awful set of points to have
“Power is a curious thing, my lord… Power resides where men believe it resides. It’s a trick, a shadow on the wall. And, a very small man can cast a very large shadow” - Lord Varys
@@Otra_Chica_de_Internet Dragon(s) + a woman unbothered by fire VS an unhinged firebender. Azula is a powerful martial artist though. (Didn't even need firebending to hang with Team Avatar on the day of the black sun)
He missed one opportunity. When he was talking about how the King doesn't necessarily have the largest land area, but often does, he could have (indeed should have) thrown a clip of the Swamp Castle ruler saying "Huuuuuuge... "tracts of land"."
@Elijah probably not. Monarchies only thrive when there is a huge disparity in power and that will probably never happen again because of how interconnected and educated people are now
Yeah. I was like errr.... Also, Ozai's reign is only so powerful because of the work of the last 2 Fire Lords and the circumstances of their reigns. Plus Sozin's Comet.
Well, it is about the only contemporary example (that most people have heard of, anyway). The Commonwealth is well known among history nerds... but there really aren't that many of us.
@@roadent217 Not even close. There were only two kings of Bohemia who got elected and Habsburgs started their long streak in 1438 and even that had exceptions.
I mean. If (deity) did come down and say so every couple of generations or so, I wouldn't really argue that reasoning too much. I'm not picking a fight with God or Zeus or Odin or Ishtar or Amaterasu or...... But, if not, might be worth checking in on that slightly sooner...
No, Merlin pretty much handpicked him and declared him the bastard son of the last king. Then there were a bunch of wars, that he won. Excalibur coming from the lake was only after the sword he pulled from the stone broke. Pretty much none of what you said was accurate.
@@alchemicpunk1509 As it rightly should. It kinda embarrassing to Ireland and France - and America insofar as they're capable of being embarrassed or aware of the rest of the world - that the Brits/Aussies/NewZealanders/Canadians won't see sense.
@@MohammedAli-hl4mr Putting aside questions of if it engrains a mindset of aristocracy and bloodright superiority, their head of state has to be a particular religion and isn't allowed to have ever been one particular one.
I think another good example of a monarchy that collapsed despite the monarch being good was Pedro II of Brazil, he was widely loved by the people as an honest, wise and benevolent ruler, at the height of his popularity a handful of rich merchants and a small faction in the military decided that a dictatorial republic was preferable to a monarchy and launched a coup, and they succeeded pretty much only because Pedro was depressed and tired of being emperor and just let them.
"Elective monarchy usually doesn't last long" Polish-LIthuanian Commonwealth was elective monarchy from 1572 to 1795 - more than 200 years. It transformed from succesive monarchy and kings were elected from other nation's monarchs and, in later days, famous polish nobles. I think it's good ezample of pros and problems of elective monarchy.
Mostly problems really. It was very bad idea (trust me, I'm polish). And if you look at our post jagiellon kings you will see that successful ones often centralized power to them, abusing system.
@@kacperszafranski2983 They did, but at least they sort of had the best for the country at heart if only because it was their powerbase. The golden veto let the lowliest szlachta be paid off to veto something important, which weakened the whole country whenever they tried to do something their neighbors didn't like.
@@festethephule7553 "Lady" here being the context of a woman of high status. Something that, in old school British culture that was communicated more by behaviour, dress, and demeanour rather than anyone outright saying it. In the case of power, what's more impressive: the leader who walks into a busy room, raises a hand, and everyone suddenly stops what they're doing to listen, or the leader who walks into a busy room and bellows at everyone to shut up and listen? Which one actually has the respect of their underlings?
@@Healermain15 mercantilism is basically the king saying my interests are your interests in terms of trade. the opposite in which i was making a joke is if the king says your interests are my interests in terms of trade are kinda the opposite and more free trade, since a trader will pick the best deal as its in their best interests
@@jam8539 On the other hand, one could argue that an absolute monarch who can impose his interests to the state could be beneficial to the people in some cases. A good king could impose trade conditions that are in the interest of the people instead of leting traders push their own. For example, that king could fix max prices for some goods to keep them affordable to the peoples. So in a way, aggressively shouting your interests are the state's interests could be a very efficient way to stop mercantilism.
The english 'Glorious Revolution' was an anti-catholic revolution rather than an anti-monarchical one. The revolutionaries didn't try to abolish the monarchy, they just crowned a new king more to their liking.
@@quetch2 Which is why the king was executed and Parliament ruled along with a small council that included Cromwell? And the monarchy was only reinstated after the death of Cromwell?
@@quetch2 And to think the English Civil War _alone_ was the result of an overarching conflict embroiling the British Isles from 1639. Thank God I don't have to study English history.
Hello Future Me,I know this off topic, but,I have a question,If your Main Character is trying to rescue someone is putting a time limit on the rescuee's life building up tension? (Let's say they've been poisoned) Is also having the rescuee trying to rescue someone else who's in danger build up even more tension?
@@rubymack4914 I'll take the liberty of answering on his behalf; yes, both are valid ways to add tension. You can even add several kinds of tension into your story at the same time. A trying to rescue B under time limit - Dramatic tension! B deciding to rescue C as well, increasing risk - More dramatic tension! A wondering if rescuing B will make B finally respect A - Narrative tension! They have hots for each other and must resist making out while they escape - Sexual tension! The three see the villain while escaping, and villain looks back, yet too far to stop their escape right there and then - Psychological tension! All three finally escape by bungee jumping... - Elastic tension! ... Into a lake - Surface tension!
I wonder how many adjectives I can add onto my monarchy. An Agnatic-Cognatic Mariticratic Bureaucratically Theocratic Imperial Monarchy. I think that sums it up.
I could be wrong, but I think if a theocracy is also bureaucratic, that is, under or alongside His/Her Holiness the King/Queen/High Priest(ess) there is also a complex, influential bureaucracy of trusted lesser priests advising the monarch and assisting (or hindering) people in filling out forms and getting the right stamps and shaking the right hands so they _too_ can bring their thanks, comments, suggestions, complaints, or concerns to the Throne, the single term "Clerical" or "Clericalist" could be used instead of the two separate terms.
@@Anastas1786 Well the thing is, this empire in particular has such a large beaucracy that has both secular and religious origins and jobs that you kind of have to say both Theocratically Bureaucratic or Bureaucratically Theocratic
@@Anastas1786 A theocracy does not necessarily involve a bureaucracy even though in most cases they do. Another form of theocracy could have the monarch hold all of the power in the theocracy due to maybe a belief that the monarch is directly given powers by the god/gods.
"If your kingdom is stable, it's almost never because of a just monarch. If your kingdom is unstable, it's almost never because of an unjust monarch." I do like Twelve Kingdoms, a fantasy novel (and anime) based on Chinese myth and history, where heaven's mandate determines the monarch of each kingdom. Once ascended, the monarch is then immortal, only growing sick and dying when they become unjust and lead the kingdom to ruin. It's such a fascinating novel series with wonderful world building and the author is returning to write more soon!
Thinking about having a nation in a setting I’m working on having what I’m going to call a “Council Monarchy”. The nation’s start was a few smaller nations founding almost in the same spot, and after a (compared to our world’s age) brief conflict realizing that they’d all lose too many to survive if the fighting continued. The monarchs of each nation form a council for which the nation’s crown goes through a cycle among them. Each pseudo-nation’s royal family would have their own method of succession for council seats, but the crown would always go in the same order of what family wears it when. If I do this in a D&D setting, then the humans of the nation will decide by “best gambler among the councilor’s children” with the thought process being that they’d know what risks to take, what ones to avoid, and how to read the people around them.
So a kind of federalized monarchy? Sounds pretty good! It does make me wonder how they handle succession problems though. What if a nation has a succession dispute, or just takes a really long time choosing? What if your monarch dies really quickly, or is going to die soon when it is "your" family's turn? Do you get a bonus round? And how much extra (or reduced) power does the super-monarch have over their own nation, and the succession laws thereof?
Have you read the guidebook on Eberron? The four major nations left in Khorvaire are all monarchies, but they are different types of monarchies. - Karnnath is a heavily militarized state with a culture to match, and its current King, Kaius III, is suspected by some in universe to be the previous King, Kaius I come back as a vampire posing as his own great grandson (in previous editions, this was canon, 5e makes it intentionally unclear). - Breland, the largest of the major nations is a constitutional monarchy, and although King Boranel is incredibly popular, there are pro democracy movements that want the monarchy abolished and power given fully to the parliament when he abdicates. In Rising from the Last War, there's an in universe newspaper article about a riot that stormed the royal palace while he was on vacation, with one democratic member of the parliament condemning violence but warning that it might be inevitable if the will of the people is ignored. - Thrane used to be a monarchy, but during the Last War, the monarch ceded power to the Church of the Silver Flame. The official head of state is now an eleven year old girl who has the unique power to commune with the Silver Flame directly, although she allows High Cardinal Crozan to handle most of the day to day decision making. Technically, the old monarchy still does exist in an advisory role, and local rule is enforced by the same nobility that ruled before Thrane became a theocracy. - I don't remember reading too much about Aundair's current government other than they have a queen, but they lost a lot of land during the Last War (some because they had to let it secede, some was seized), and if the war were to break out again, a lot of them want it back.
It's weird how both Danaerys and Azula had power-mad fathers, were driven by dreams of world domination, commanded huge armies, used spies and deceit to get what they wanted, ruthlessly punished dissent, were obsessed with incinerating their enemies, went completely insane by the end, and got defeated by their relatives.
I think you misunderstood Danaerys character. Well her character writing did randomly change in the season and a half, so I guess you are kinda correct.
With regard to the good king/good kingdom question, I half agree. Yes, a good ruler won't necessarily make everything all right, but a bad ruler can definitely screw things up pretty badly (usually by getting involved in a bunch of pointless wars).
Time Table/Time Stamps 00:23 - Types of Monarchy 07:14 - De Jure vs. De Facto Power 10:50 - Communication, Control, and Commerce 19:13 - Royal Court 22:32 How Monarchies Collapse 27:08 - A Good Kingdom A Good King Make Not 30:11 - Summary
Malaysia has a unique form of elective monarchy in which there is a collection of 13 Sultans that take turns as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, cycling through the roster of 13 kings every 4 years.
I have been wanting to suggest something for you to talk about ever since you made your video about first person perspectives, but I kept forgetting to mention it. I was thinking you could do a video about using multiple perspectives. I don't really know the right word for it, but it generally works as follows. Chapter 1 is about character A, chapter 2 is about character B, chapter 3 is about character A etc. etc. etc. You could talk about when to use it. What are things you have to look out for. What it adds to the story and other things. You could also talk about the fourth witcher book, where there was a part of the story where there were like 30 different point of view characters.
@@emc246 Haven't read Kane Chronicles but I'd actually argue this is a place that HoO actually failed in my opinion. Characters I cared about were given significantly less perspective time than the ones I didn't feel like I'd been given more than very generic reasons to care about. A good example; we should have seen Nico's perspective and his struggles with sexuality and acceptance earlier in the series. It would have given us some extreme weight to his role in House of Hades, to the Pomegranate Seed Thing, etc. Too many perspective characters and too rigid a pattern resulted in incredibly bland chapters from certain characters when the pacing should have been more snappy. I regularly argue that the second book should have been switched with the first, even with the minor chronology issues it would cause; it would have been a smoother and more compelling introduction to the format after the first person style of the preceding series. (Not at all related to POV but may I also just say HoO is one of the most poorly edited books I've seen go to print? I've never found so many typos in a printed YA/kidlit book honestly. I love this series and the characters but... hooooo boy.)
@@GrimmDelightsDice I meant that they were good because they include it, not necessarily because they are good books. HoO is definitely a mess, but could be used to show what not to do, and I remember him using Percy Jackson in videos before, so I figured he would be familiar with the books.
EM11212 The Kane Chronicles were a good example of this because they switched between two back and forth consistently so no one perspective ever got snubbed. HoO was bad because the seven perspectives highlighted badly how Riordan only writes three kinds of protagonists.
Note on the French Revolution: the idea that the king was automatically blamed for everything is itself a bit of a myth, at least to the extent of it leading to him being executed. The French Revolution was a period that lasted for several years and at first the change was to a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. The king wasn't arrested until evidence was discovered of the royal family plotting with the Austrians to overthrow the government and re-establish absolute monarchy. It's true that there was plenty of tension between the royals and the revolutionaries even before that but the king wasn't executed just for being the king. He was being accused of treason and they had valid evidence against him. It's true that Louis XVI wasn't a particularly horrible king. He wasn't a particularly good one either. He was just a normal guy in a bad situation and I assume he felt like he had the duty to protect the tradition that put his family in power. But he was on the wrong side of history. Also he probably spent too much time listening to his wife and his brothers who were all very conservative and hostile towards the democratic changes made by the revolutionaries.
@Syksy Right/wrong side of history is a fallacy. The reality is the revolution existed in two phases, the first led by the rural aristocracy against his pro-urban reforms, and the second led by the urbanites against the new noble-controlled constitutional monarchy. The reality is the King was just an obstacle that needed to be overcome, for both the conservative nobles and the revolutionary urbanites.
@@falsename226 I think there were a lot more phases, personally. Also what are you even talking about, the first phase was led by the rural aristocracy? There were indeed aristocrats involved in the revolution, but it was not their revolution in any sense. The whole thing started with the representatives of _the third estate_ calling for rebellion. As for their motivations, it's true that the various groups involved in the revolution were in part motivated by self-interest. Particularly in terms of the wealthy bourgeoisie seeing its chance to improve its station in society. There's a lot to critique about their aims too. But your narrative is just bizarre and I have no idea where you're getting this. And the fact that many of the revolutionaries were motivated by a sense of justice and a wish to improve society is undeniable.
@@darknessml6145 Agreed, but I must add that the myth of a right/wrong side of history is beneficial for the winner who will likely claim that they were on the right side of history. This also apply to us and the already mentioned blaming of the french monarch for everything that happened in the french revolution, we live in a republican world where the mindset of modern societies being inherently superior to past societies is the norm, so obviously these myths follow the interest of those who have this same view. While I may the point of monarchies being a less effective political system depending on the context we're talking about, in our case it's part of the interest of our society that the fall of monarchies as a inferior form of government is seen as a inevitability and a requirement for the so called "progress of history".
Remember, Kings are PEOPLE... I'll give you an example from reality that to most people outside my country is likely not as well known, but I think illustrate this point well. "It's possible you are so scared you dare not follow me on this journey... However I shall complete my plans without you and nothing shall make me listen to that kind of ridicules advice from a coward!" - Valdemar the Victorious of Denmark when advised not to travel through Germany to visit the Emperor Absalon (Valdemars closest adviser and friend) tells Valdemar that Skaanen rebels have chased him out of the area, Valdemar threatens to kill every single one of the rebels "The king asked the messenger move aside, sighed deeply and under four eyes complained to Absalon that neither family obligations nor good deeds had been able to protect him against evil intrigues from his relatives." - Valdemar the Victorious when informed about Magnus Eriksens treason. So here we got a guy who clearly got a bit of a temper, cares deeply for his family and friends (spoiler, he didn't execute Magnus which people believed he should have), but at times it seems the crown also weighs on him a bit. I mean he weren't a saint, I just picked these as they showed different part of his personality (I thought) and frankly there is both a limit to what you can gather on one of the first kings of Denmark and what I can write before repeating myself.
I've always thought it was interesting that the main villain and the original princess came from the same planet, but nothing about either of their stories really reflects that it gives it the weight it deserves. Like ... Was Palpatine obsessed with power because he came from a society that deemed it impossible for him to divinely deserve power? Alternatively, I always supported the "Rey is a Palpatine" theory back even when it was a crack theory, way back, way back in Force Awakens, because I liked the idea of Palpatine finally giving into his culture and putting some sort of divine sense of providence on his granddaughter. In a Star Wars book, a niece of Palpatine was put in place by the Empire to be the empress after he fell. And of course she was stylized in anabu way so she looked very similar to Padme. And the New Republic actually negotiated to allow her to be an empress under a new constitution, but before the negotiations could be finalized, she was assassinated. I just wish that the movies had drew more inspiration from the old expanded universe.
@@Cityweaver man I agree I really wish they pulled it off better in ros because I thought the twist was a good idea that if crafted better would have been really cool
@@joemamajoastar8708 Honestly I always saw it as Palpatine being a sith first, but him being a peasant who clawed his way through Politics and wanted to declare his lineage King would have been so much cooler. Especially if the New Republic turned into a Constitutional Monarchy with Thrawne and Palpatine's son at the center. If they turned the collapsed of the Empire into a sort of French Revolution period where everyone was vying for power. The story would have been a lot cooler.
@@Cityweaver Palpatine is a Sith Lord. They are chosen by their predecessor because they are absolute psychopaths with great potential, and a thirst por power and knowledge. Him wanting to be emperor is more in line with the Sith ideology than anything Naboo related. The fact that he chose emperor as his title instead of king is a direct reference to the Sith Emperors who used to have their own state before 1032 BBY. It has everything to do with the teachings of his master, Darth Plagueis, which was himself the last in a line of succession going back to Darth Bane and the last Sith Empire. This has nothing to do with Naboo and realistically Darth Vader would have been the next emperor in case of Darth Sidious' premature death as is Sith tradition and not any blood relatives.
The idea that Møre was it's own kingdom is hilarious to me. Also I love all the different countries' leadership structures Thedas (the world of deagon age) they're all so intresting and different.
I’m reminded of a brutal, complicated yet simplistic order of rule in a Science Fantasy race the Orks from Warhammer 40K their social structure is based on size and power. The stronger and Ork is the bigger they are and they get big through battle. If an Ork wants to be the Boss they challenge the current boss and if the challenger dies it reinforces the current bosses rule. It’s a clan based structure. Theirs a Boss, Big Boss, War Boss and Over Boss. The Overboss is essentially the Ork King over the race and is consequently the biggest and strongest (so far until they die and another really strong Ork gets named Overboss.
0:23 Types of Monarchy 7:14 De jure vs. De Facto Power 10:50 Communication, Control and Commerce 19:13 Royal Court 22:32 How Monarchies Collapse 27:08 A good kingdom A good king make not 30:11 Summary
I was just thinking would Peter Pan be an anarcho-monarch? He's king of the lost boys but doesn't really have a kingdom does he? I mean I guess there's Neverland, but it kind of seems like he just lives there not rules it, especially seeing as how he runs from Captain Hook.
Timing of this couldn't be more perfect. Currently working on a story with multiple ruling monarchs and a complex system of inheritance, and I was about to start working on the functions of the rest of the court. This vid has given me some great inspiration and now I know what to focus on. Thanks Tim!
"I will rule on Mondays, Dave will rule on Tuesdays, Matt will rule on Wednesdays, Jason will rule on Thursdays... And on Fridays, nobody's in charge. Absolute anarchy."
I had an idea of a monarch empire with 5 main houses electing the next king for a short term, while also making the house that had a kong not being able to get another one until the next 2 terms. This could make a potentionally interesting situation, since it not only manages to avoid becoming a succesion monarchy, but also makes an interesting game of chess between those houses that can compete for next term. While 1 still have to wait for another house to have a term, and the one that has this terms king have to decide which of 3 potentional candidates to support.
The video is mostly very well written and researched, but there are some details that I would like to point out. The video is made from a republican point of view (in the traditional sense, not the party), and it loses some of the newances of monarchy. On some points of importance: 1. An elective Monarchy will always be much weaker and unstable than a successive one. The Prince Electors of the HRE often voted for weak rulers so that their inerests would be safe, and foreing interference in the polish royal elections was a staple of the commonwealth's waning years. 2. While Monarchs can and sometimes were petty, this is the exception rather than the norm. More often than not, these apparently small actions of whimp have a well tought political objective. For example, when recently the Saudi crown prince lifted the restriction on women driving, it wasn't out of the goodness of his heart or his disdain for his culture, but to send a message to the religious authorities of his realm, as to remind them who is in charge with something small enought that they wouldn't make a huge problem out of it. 3. While it is true that the King can only do so much for the welfare of his realm, this is highly dependent on the time period. A medieval duchy, for example requires a much more basic set of skills to be correctly administrated than a modern nation, and thus it is often the case that, power being absolute, the first will benefit much more of a good king, while the second will suffer much more with a bad one. For example, the collapse of the Russian Empire was greatly, even mostly, the result of the incompetent Nicholas II having to deal with challenges that the greatest of his ancestors would have struggled with, even if he had the best of intentions and a deep love for his people. TL/DR: A simpler society is more resistant of poor rulers and easier to prosper under good ones, while a mor complex society is more reliably prosperous, but harder to make boom and more vulnerable to a poor ruler if his personal power is far reaching. 4. The preservation of a monarchy needs not be by reform or weakening the crown's power, as the incredibly stable, albeit often tyrannical arab monarchies remember us. If the crown is a powerful agent in it's own right, it may succeed in quashing calls for reform without giving an inch of it's power. On some particular historical details: 1. The "Beard Tax" Peter I imposed was not out of pettiness or the emperor's facial hair taste; but a part of changing the mindset of the russian nobility and how Europe perceived russia. At the time, it was a backwater at the end of the world and in desperate need of reform, and the beard tax was a symbol of a much wider transformation. 2. Elective Monarchies, even those that eventually became successive, lasted for centuries, as great houses rose and fell. The Holy Roman Empire eventually came under direct controll of the Habsburgs, but before that it lasted from Otto I in 962, to 1440, when the first Habsburg occupied the Imperial dignity, and even then their hold was much weaker than it would be. That's 476 years. Likewise, the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth lasted elective for 223 years. 3. Talking about Cromwell as a monarch is not only wrong, but downright insulting. The man was a military dictator and a regicidal tyrant, not a king. Dictatorships and monarchies work by different rules and are bound by different interests. 4. Mercantilism as an economical philosophy had more to do with a misunderstanding of the nature of commerce than with monarchical power. I.E: The Dutch Republic favored merchantilism as it's economic policy, not because their (non existing) king did, but because it was the predominant economic theory of the time. Please forgive any typos, not a native speaker.
HRE has many powerful rules is a myth that HRE monarchy was always weak (Ottonian dynasty , Salian Dynasty and Hohenstaufen were in their time the most powerful dynasties in europe )
These are all totally fair points! History is always going to be more nuanced than I am capable of talking about in a 30 minute video. Though I will note that the point about Oliver Cromwell was a point about unitary authorities which applies to monarchs and dictatorships, and elective monarchies that last a long time are historically the exception to the rule. ~ Tim
The Kingdoms of the Norse(Norway in particular) and Kievan Rus in their Pagan periods were also successful. And the Chinese Han and Tang dynasties were good as well.
I love your worldbuilding series so much! Thank you for continuing to share these. Personally I'm working now on determining how a genuinely immortal emperor would impact the rest of the structure of a medium-sized and very isolationist society. This has given me a lot to think about.
How the monarch came into power may influence succession. If it's through might, then making sure the monarch is a good warrior (trained by his father perhaps) is important. If it was by uniting lands through diplomacy against a common threat, then they'll likely be behind the lines or at home doing paperwork or maintaining good relations between different parts of the kingdom, so the monarch will have to be able to command respect without violence (meaning whatever the different subcultures can agree on will be the means of succession). However, I'm at odds with George R.R. Martin on this (as I tend to be, though not always) as I think fantasy requires only enough grounding to make it believable; fantasy is a good dinner, and having a bit of dessert at the end is usually best.
Well if anything goes by fantasy, GRRM's works are more of an anti-fantasy than a legit one. Fantasies don't necessarily have to delve into politics to be believable
There is really a whole lot more to mercantilism than it just being "wrong theory" in service of upholding waning monarchical power. It's really one of the first attempts to develope a coherent economic theory in early modern society and a whole lot of new concepts were introduced that medieval monarchies really didn't think all that much about. For example the idea of having policies targeting the growth of population, perceiving population as national ressource. The idea of actually influencing exports vs. imports and that having more exports would mean more wealth would flow into the country, too, is somewhat that previously wasn't thought about all that much (usually just resorting to taxing trade). And, more importantly, it was tightly linked to changes in military technology. The spread of gunpowder weapons and the subsequent focus on standing professional armies, with the peasant levies of the medieval era slowly becoming less and less important. Mercantilism was focused on maximising monetary income for the state in order to pay for the growing upkeep of growing standing armies. In doing so, mercantilism actually laid many of the foundations of modern capitalism, forcibly converting a lot of pre-modern subsistence economy into money based (taxable!) economy. Colonial exploitation, things like the enclosures, workhouses and manufacturies, were all tightly linked to this developement.
One thing you forgot to talk about when worldbuilding monarchies are how to interact with the press in your world. Do they have complete control of the press in your world (such as in North Korea) or do they allow certain newspapers access to writing stories about your royals (Such as the Royal Rota in the United Kingdom).
the country much of my fantasy story is set in ends up being a diarchy, ruled by one person with magic, and one without. Discrimination against magic people is ingrained into the society, and the protagonist, after taking the archonship from the previous Archon, sets the diarchy up in an attempt to change this. As a side note, while the rulership was previously a monarchy with the eldest daughter with magic being heir, the Archon wanted to change it so that rulership was electoral, but only between a set of candidates with the most powerful magic. Other countries in the world have lots of other ways of doing things that incorporate the magic system and the ways it has affected their culture and values. I'm really proud of it!
This is a much more in depth explanation for those shallow people who simply thinks of just monarchy bad, democracy good I've seen in comments around these days.
I love how, in Dragon Age, they show two completely different statuses mages can have, based on what country they are in. In Tevinter, mages rule, and the more powerful your magic, the more political power you have (to a degree- family ties matter too). In the Southern kingdoms or city-states, mages are kept away from the rest of society and only let out when a monarch wants to use them in battle. I love the depth of Dragon Age's worldbuilding.
Clearly George RR didn't really pay attention to the LOTR books. Its made pretty clear that Gondor is struggling only because of Sauron's efforts, so once he is defeated the Kingdom can resume its activity that made it such a powerhouse.....plus we don't hear much of Aragorn's actualy kingship because, you know, its not a politics story, we had a hobbits story to wrap up.
Great video! I wish you had mentioned something about how a magical/fantasy version or analogue to the concept of the "divine right to rule" might play out. What if the king actually is magically or otherwise empowered to rule, either directly, or indirectly through the magical powers they receive. And what would happen if the Monarchy which needs it's ruler collapses? I guess in part it goes under the scope of resources the monarch is in control of. But I still really love it when you start looking at more fantasy/sci-fi twists on things in detail.
every time I come to your channel, I'm blown away by just how intelligent you are and how wonderfully you're able to craft these videos. stunning work, as always
As somebody who has made efforts to write a few different types of monarchies in his fiction, I appreciate this video! Stay well out there everybody, and Jesus Christ be with you friends.😊
In D&D games I’m O find that the DM almost always has the are De Jure power and De Facto power be one and the same. Also no one in government breaks or bends laws (or makes a mistake). It can be a little emersion breaking too.
My favorite monarchy system is that of the Gelfling (pre-Jen that is) Basically it was like this: Eldest daughter gets the throne, gaining the title of Maudra of her clan. The Maudra of the Vapra clan is called the All-Maudra and represents all 7 clans. I mean technically the Skeksis are in charge but still I like the whole Maudra thing
The system I have in place is essentially that the king acts in a similar role to Queen Victoria where he owns the land but doesn’t bother with the day to day, instead leaving that up to his council. To join the council one must: defeat a member to replace them, have an invention to improve the live of the people, and make a certain amount every month for the past three months.
In your description/pinned comment you forgot to add that the strange women lying in ponds are distributing swords. That’s a vital piece of information…
I’ve been basing much of one of my kingdoms off of Ancient Roman government. In the process of research, I found that the Ancient Roman kings (not emperors) were elected, but many times the same families would be elected back into the monarchy as you mentioned.
I just found your channel like yesterday and I am binge watching your videos like a maniac. I just started to work on my lifelong dream to become a writer and your videos are pure gold, thank you! It's also satisfying to see that I already implement many of the things you discuss in your videos, but they are nevertheless an absolute treasure. Keep up the good work
this made me think of how a species/culture that I'm working on expands as they're a tribe based culture, and shortly after thinking of the question I realized that established and confident females, as they are Matriarchal, leave the tribe/Clan they rule over to a younger queen as a rite of passage but also as a way of giving her experience in her role for when it comes time for her to either take over from a dying tribe/clan queen or when setting up her own tribe/clan
Hey! I discovered your channel recently, and I love your videos on world building. The problem is that I'm french, and if I'm pretty confident in my english, I still struggle to understand everything you say. Would you consider to put english subtitles in your videos? I think I'm not the only one in this case, and since you probably have a script, it shouldn't be too long. However, if my request is inappropriate, excuse me, I'm not a youtuber myself and I don't exactly know how much work it needs to subtitle a video.
More than one monarch can exist ruling one kingdom or nation. Sparta had two kings reigning at once, such a unique way of ruling could end succession and civil wars. Let’s see. Thirteen monarchs with thirteen princes and princesses all groomed and ready to succeed them - both a senate and monarchy in one group. In such a situation I would create a meritocratic-monarchy. A tiered citizenship system where the highest level of citizenship makes you a viable prince/princess should you be chosen and crowned as successor. This is built in such a way that people are forced to be honest with others and themselves in order to ascend in citizenship. Citizenship One is the default - all inherent and natural rights are guaranteed and protected such as property and speech. You can live your life freely and without struggle without ever moving up. Citizenship Two - this level requires two brutal years of military training and service (a total of four years) and must show signs of climbing the ranks. This list goes on another three levels with challenges getting harder and more of them to do with each level.
@@mikeoxsmal8022 I think the video should have been about royalty instead of monarchy. I feel that monarchy can be a bit restrictive in term of worldbuilding.
Egypt also often had two kings. The father would make the son king while he still ruled which helped prevent succession conflicts and taught the son how to rule, kind of like an apprenticeship.
I'm also reminded of the time when there was three popes.
3 ปีที่แล้ว
there is a frase that encapsulate what does make a good monarch, its not if he is good, its not if it cruel, it is when they can assume the responsability and take the better choice for hus kingdom "Heavy is the weight of the one who bore the crown"
12:08 I would recommend looking into Battletech. In particular, the structure of the HPG network. It's such an integral part of how the various rulers communicate among their respective states that the single company that gained control over it - Comstar - has become the de facto ruler of the majority of the setting up until the Jihad era. It's a setting where, if any of the other states' intelligence services has information, Comstar will have that information because they *have* to use the HPG network to communicate it through their empire. It's to the point where Comstar can - and will - start wars between the various states in order to maintain a balance of power
A very interesting real world monarchy is Montenegro. As a confederation of highland clans (no relation to Scotland) opposing the Ottomans, where many clans had longstanding and bloody rivalries, they picked a member of the clergy to rule as “prince-bishop”, since the church was seen as above clan rivalries. Over time, power centralized in the house of Petrović-Njegoš, a family of merchants claiming descent from medieval Serbian nobility, who formed a successive but still theocratic monarchy. Though Orthodox priests can have wives and kids, bishops cannot, so the succession passed to a nephew, not a son. Their last prince-bishop, Nikola, secularized the country, declaring himself prince and later king
I’ve thought of an interesting model for monarchy, in your video about religion I commented on a particular faction who rely strongly on the fishing industry. Their monarchy would be very interesting in my opinion if the king himself participated in the Industry, this would be a very good strategic way to ensure that the people believe he or she understands their troubles, as well it would be an elected monarchy, where the king or queen serves for life. This would make moots for a new king extremely valuable events, and could lead to prominent fishing captains being elected as king.
I wish they would have explored this more in the second avatar series. I mean, really, Zukko didn't best her in Agni Ki. And given Zukko's young age (and the avatar's even younger age), the resentment most of the rest of the world most likely would have had for the Fire Nation, the Fire Nation possibly having to pay reparations for the destruction they caused, the massive hit the Fire Nation's economy would most likely take, and possible restrictions put on there military, and I think many people of the Fire Nation probably would reject him as Fire Lord, seeing him as weak and an imposter, and possibly seek her out with the intentions of putting her back on the throne (since the old Fire Lord can't bend anymore). Kind of like Germany after WW1 and building up to WW2.
![On Worldbuilding: How do Empires Work? [ Fire Nation l Roman l Mongols ] PART 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/51MWp0Hgo90/mqdefault.jpg)
![On Worldbuilding: How do Empires Work? [ Fire Nation l Roman l Mongols ] PART 1](/img/tr.png)
![On Worldbuilding - Island Civilisations! [ GoT | Japan | Ghibli ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pTYpjsGcKgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Warhammer 40k: Space Marine 2 | เพื่อจักรพรรดิ ! [ตอนเดียวจบ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4M0ckYMA4-U/mqdefault.jpg)
Strange women lying in ponds may be no basis for a system of government, but Dashlane is a good basis for moving about online >>> www.dashlane.com/hellofutureme + get 10% off with my link. Stay nerdy!
~ Tim
is we fast enough?
Great breakdown, and so useful! I've got all sorts of sparks going off for my YA fantasy now!
Dragon Age Reference mention?! Hell ya!
Hello Future Me 👌
Doth I sense a secret Jenna/Tim crossover?
For those of you who are not from the U.K., yes the queen can shoot lasers out of her eyes like in the thumbnail.
It's one of the main reasons she has remained in power. Everyone is too terrified to depose the Queen of Heat Deaths.
~ Tim
I'm amazed we Americans managed to get away then if that's a common trait of the British monarchy.
You had the French and the Spanish to help you and both of those nations had monarchy’s of there own at the time .
Merritt Animation I guess you could say that they where busy French frying.
Unfortunately, she's getting on in years, so they don't do much anymore besides project little red dots that her pet corgies chase around. Also can blind aircraft.
"if the kingdom was unstable it's not only because there was a bad monarch."
Go tell that to my 0/1/0 king.
Is it his KDA?
@@kelnmiirkageoni1667 I believe it's a reference to EUIV, a game where monarchs are given a score out of 6 for admin, Diplo and military points, which is also the amount of those points you get a month. 0/1/0 is an awful set of points to have
-50 prestige, here I come
Go back to lol where demacia has a elective monarchy... but there have been IV jarvans in power... is he corrupted?
Sounds like swimming lessons or hunting sessions would have been in order.
“Power is a curious thing, my lord… Power resides where men believe it resides. It’s a trick, a shadow on the wall. And, a very small man can cast a very large shadow” - Lord Varys
barbiquearea
Lord Varys
“I’m not actually a Lord”
Too soon....
Back when GoT was still good...
One of the best scenes in Game Of Thrones.
@@beregondibram2985 The Books are still good. should try reading them ;)
For what it’s worth, a fight between her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Azula, and Daenerys was the Game of Thrones finale we should’ve gotten.
Azula would win in less than 20 minutes lol
Queenie would solo.
She would even solo Goku, too.
@@Otra_Chica_de_Internet Dragon(s) + a woman unbothered by fire VS an unhinged firebender.
Azula is a powerful martial artist though.
(Didn't even need firebending to hang with Team Avatar on the day of the black sun)
You forget Queen E has a competent modern military plus nuclear weapons
@@Otra_Chica_de_Internet queen Elizabeth wins she can't be killed
As a Swede I really appreciate that you showed our king wearing the official royal crown
Såg inte den delen, Är Det en av knugens berömda hattar?
@@isakpalsson9012 vid 23:53 kan du själv se den ståtliga kronan.
@@elon4417 jag fick vad jag önskade mig😀
@@isakpalsson9012 Det är svårt att bli besviken på Kungen ändå.
Så länge man inte är Arboga-bo, alltså.
Non-Swede here, what on earth is the context behind that photo?
The effective use of Monty Python in this delights me
He missed one opportunity. When he was talking about how the King doesn't necessarily have the largest land area, but often does, he could have (indeed should have) thrown a clip of the Swamp Castle ruler saying "Huuuuuuge... "tracts of land"."
Daryl Sawyer “one day lad all this will be yours”
@Elijah probably not. Monarchies only thrive when there is a huge disparity in power and that will probably never happen again because of how interconnected and educated people are now
@Elijah America says hi back
@@adielwilson8749 Give us another 10-15 years... if that. :-\
*"For Fire Lord Sozin for example-"*
* Shows clips of Fire Lord Ozai *
Thank you
Yeah that was probably just an error. It happens to the best of us.
Yeah. I was like errr....
Also, Ozai's reign is only so powerful because of the work of the last 2 Fire Lords and the circumstances of their reigns. Plus Sozin's Comet.
Mentions Elective Monarchy "Vatican is probably the most famous example"
Me: *Cries in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth*
Well, it is about the only contemporary example (that most people have heard of, anyway). The Commonwealth is well known among history nerds... but there really aren't that many of us.
What about the HRE?
@@gaurav.raj.mishra
Ehh... As far as I'm aware, it was always either Bohemia or the Habsburgs (usually Austria, sometimes Spain) that got elected.
@@roadent217 Not even close. There were only two kings of Bohemia who got elected and Habsburgs started their long streak in 1438 and even that had exceptions.
My first thought was the doges of venice
"Why do you get to be king"
'Cuz god said so'
"Okay, guess I won't question that for 1,000 years"
Well really it would be “Cuz God said so and I have all these soldiers that will murder you if you don’t agree”
"Well I didn't vote for you"
@@redshirt5126 Tell that to elective monarchy.
Zug zug.
28:20 (Mandate of heaven also meant that if there were no disaster - emperor is a good one)
I mean. If (deity) did come down and say so every couple of generations or so, I wouldn't really argue that reasoning too much. I'm not picking a fight with God or Zeus or Odin or Ishtar or Amaterasu or......
But, if not, might be worth checking in on that slightly sooner...
·When you get a magic sword from a lady in a pond·
Arthur: "I am now the king!"
No, Merlin pretty much handpicked him and declared him the bastard son of the last king. Then there were a bunch of wars, that he won. Excalibur coming from the lake was only after the sword he pulled from the stone broke. Pretty much none of what you said was accurate.
@@morganrobinson8042 think you meant sword he pulled from the stone
@@calcifur Right, thanks. Edited
Morgan Robinson Wait so what was the stone sword’s name?
@@cosmictraveler1146 Welsh. I'm not even trying to spell it.
"Eventually, all heads roll. Including the monarch -especially if you are French-"
*proceeds to show the beheading of the English monarch*
Probably just subliminal messaging. Any extended look at monarchy and the mechanisms behinds it usually leads to antimonarchism nowadays.
@@alchemicpunk1509 As it rightly should. It kinda embarrassing to Ireland and France - and America insofar as they're capable of being embarrassed or aware of the rest of the world - that the Brits/Aussies/NewZealanders/Canadians won't see sense.
@@Twilord_ the queen has purely ceremonial power
@@MohammedAli-hl4mr Putting aside questions of if it engrains a mindset of aristocracy and bloodright superiority, their head of state has to be a particular religion and isn't allowed to have ever been one particular one.
@@MohammedAli-hl4mr ah yes, the purely ceremonial power of being the largest landowner in the country.....
I think another good example of a monarchy that collapsed despite the monarch being good was Pedro II of Brazil, he was widely loved by the people as an honest, wise and benevolent ruler, at the height of his popularity a handful of rich merchants and a small faction in the military decided that a dictatorial republic was preferable to a monarchy and launched a coup, and they succeeded pretty much only because Pedro was depressed and tired of being emperor and just let them.
When?
@@engelsteinberg593 1889
"Elective monarchy usually doesn't last long"
Polish-LIthuanian Commonwealth was elective monarchy from 1572 to 1795 - more than 200 years. It transformed from succesive monarchy and kings were elected from other nation's monarchs and, in later days, famous polish nobles. I think it's good ezample of pros and problems of elective monarchy.
That were the usually comes from.
Then it fell apart, mainly due to the "golden veto".
Mostly problems really. It was very bad idea (trust me, I'm polish). And if you look at our post jagiellon kings you will see that successful ones often centralized power to them, abusing system.
@@kacperszafranski2983 They did, but at least they sort of had the best for the country at heart if only because it was their powerbase. The golden veto let the lowliest szlachta be paid off to veto something important, which weakened the whole country whenever they tried to do something their neighbors didn't like.
@@somerando1073 Golden liberty was main, but still one of many, problems.
some random ruler: I am the king!
Tywin Lannister: any man who has to say I am the king, is no true king.
You have to say it at least once. Affirming the fact is important. It's repeating it all the time that undermines the point.
“Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.”
- Margaret Thatcher
@@Alpostpone Damn, well said.
@@Alpostpone
I don't get it.
@@festethephule7553 "Lady" here being the context of a woman of high status. Something that, in old school British culture that was communicated more by behaviour, dress, and demeanour rather than anyone outright saying it.
In the case of power, what's more impressive: the leader who walks into a busy room, raises a hand, and everyone suddenly stops what they're doing to listen, or the leader who walks into a busy room and bellows at everyone to shut up and listen? Which one actually has the respect of their underlings?
aggressively shouting your interests are the state's interests is the best way to stop mercantilism
Isn't that basically mercantilism to begin with?
The Julie d'Aubigny stan club nah it doesn’t have to be. It’s just the king saying “I am the State!” Like Louis XIV
@@Healermain15 mercantilism is basically the king saying my interests are your interests in terms of trade. the opposite in which i was making a joke is if the king says your interests are my interests in terms of trade are kinda the opposite and more free trade, since a trader will pick the best deal as its in their best interests
@@jam8539 On the other hand, one could argue that an absolute monarch who can impose his interests to the state could be beneficial to the people in some cases. A good king could impose trade conditions that are in the interest of the people instead of leting traders push their own. For example, that king could fix max prices for some goods to keep them affordable to the peoples. So in a way, aggressively shouting your interests are the state's interests could be a very efficient way to stop mercantilism.
What about when the monarch shouts “THE STATE’S INTERESTS ARE YOUR INTERESTS!”?
"That somehow survived the glorious revolution"
Well that would seem to make the revolution incomplete.
The english 'Glorious Revolution' was an anti-catholic revolution rather than an anti-monarchical one.
The revolutionaries didn't try to abolish the monarchy, they just crowned a new king more to their liking.
@@quetch2 Which is why the king was executed and Parliament ruled along with a small council that included Cromwell? And the monarchy was only reinstated after the death of Cromwell?
@@Lorgar64 That was the English civil war (1642 - 1651).
The glorious revolution (1688) was a separate event.
@@quetch2 And to think the English Civil War _alone_ was the result of an overarching conflict embroiling the British Isles from 1639. Thank God I don't have to study English history.
*Lenin rises from the ashes* "DID I HEAR REVOLUTION!"
4:25 "Because they believed them less vulnerable to corruption"
How wrong they were.
"Hey why are these files corrupted?"
"Oh we wrote some stuff about the Chinese eunuch class. It happens."
~ Tim
@@HelloFutureMe
Catholic priest/monks are meant to have the same function, even if it fails often.
@@HelloFutureMe Adding the Ottoman eunuchs caused the computer to implode.
Hello Future Me,I know this off topic, but,I have a question,If your Main Character is trying to rescue someone is putting a time limit on the rescuee's life building up tension? (Let's say they've been poisoned) Is also having the rescuee trying to rescue someone else who's in danger build up even more tension?
@@rubymack4914 I'll take the liberty of answering on his behalf; yes, both are valid ways to add tension. You can even add several kinds of tension into your story at the same time.
A trying to rescue B under time limit - Dramatic tension!
B deciding to rescue C as well, increasing risk - More dramatic tension!
A wondering if rescuing B will make B finally respect A - Narrative tension!
They have hots for each other and must resist making out while they escape - Sexual tension!
The three see the villain while escaping, and villain looks back, yet too far to stop their escape right there and then - Psychological tension!
All three finally escape by bungee jumping... - Elastic tension!
... Into a lake - Surface tension!
(Starts off with a Monty Python reference.)
Oh, this gonna be good...
I wonder how many adjectives I can add onto my monarchy.
An Agnatic-Cognatic Mariticratic Bureaucratically Theocratic Imperial Monarchy. I think that sums it up.
Thalassocratic seems way more badass than mariticratic if you were going for a sea based monarchy.
I could be wrong, but I think if a theocracy is also bureaucratic, that is, under or alongside His/Her Holiness the King/Queen/High Priest(ess) there is also a complex, influential bureaucracy of trusted lesser priests advising the monarch and assisting (or hindering) people in filling out forms and getting the right stamps and shaking the right hands so they _too_ can bring their thanks, comments, suggestions, complaints, or concerns to the Throne, the single term "Clerical" or "Clericalist" could be used instead of the two separate terms.
@@Anastas1786 Well the thing is, this empire in particular has such a large beaucracy that has both secular and religious origins and jobs that you kind of have to say both Theocratically Bureaucratic or Bureaucratically Theocratic
@@tiagonovaes9211 The empire has a Thalassocratic duchy under it.
@@Anastas1786 A theocracy does not necessarily involve a bureaucracy even though in most cases they do. Another form of theocracy could have the monarch hold all of the power in the theocracy due to maybe a belief that the monarch is directly given powers by the god/gods.
"If your kingdom is stable, it's almost never because of a just monarch. If your kingdom is unstable, it's almost never because of an unjust monarch."
I do like Twelve Kingdoms, a fantasy novel (and anime) based on Chinese myth and history, where heaven's mandate determines the monarch of each kingdom. Once ascended, the monarch is then immortal, only growing sick and dying when they become unjust and lead the kingdom to ruin. It's such a fascinating novel series with wonderful world building and the author is returning to write more soon!
Thinking about having a nation in a setting I’m working on having what I’m going to call a “Council Monarchy”. The nation’s start was a few smaller nations founding almost in the same spot, and after a (compared to our world’s age) brief conflict realizing that they’d all lose too many to survive if the fighting continued. The monarchs of each nation form a council for which the nation’s crown goes through a cycle among them. Each pseudo-nation’s royal family would have their own method of succession for council seats, but the crown would always go in the same order of what family wears it when.
If I do this in a D&D setting, then the humans of the nation will decide by “best gambler among the councilor’s children” with the thought process being that they’d know what risks to take, what ones to avoid, and how to read the people around them.
So a kind of federalized monarchy? Sounds pretty good!
It does make me wonder how they handle succession problems though. What if a nation has a succession dispute, or just takes a really long time choosing? What if your monarch dies really quickly, or is going to die soon when it is "your" family's turn? Do you get a bonus round? And how much extra (or reduced) power does the super-monarch have over their own nation, and the succession laws thereof?
Oh so you mean an oligarchy. In which the mass of people are oppressed by a handful of wealthy elites.
huh......my country has already something similar to that......though its a federal parliamentary elective constitutional monarch
@@randomka-52alligatorthatis34 What's the point of a constitutional monarch?
Theres an african nation with a monarchy identical to how you described, cant remember which one tho...
Making a government for my D&D game, so this is perfect timing!
Making fictional governments is one of my primary hobbies. Feel free to bounce ideas off me.
I could make a government monarchy story to lay out buuuuutt it's going to take hours to create tho
Have you read the guidebook on Eberron? The four major nations left in Khorvaire are all monarchies, but they are different types of monarchies.
- Karnnath is a heavily militarized state with a culture to match, and its current King, Kaius III, is suspected by some in universe to be the previous King, Kaius I come back as a vampire posing as his own great grandson (in previous editions, this was canon, 5e makes it intentionally unclear).
- Breland, the largest of the major nations is a constitutional monarchy, and although King Boranel is incredibly popular, there are pro democracy movements that want the monarchy abolished and power given fully to the parliament when he abdicates. In Rising from the Last War, there's an in universe newspaper article about a riot that stormed the royal palace while he was on vacation, with one democratic member of the parliament condemning violence but warning that it might be inevitable if the will of the people is ignored.
- Thrane used to be a monarchy, but during the Last War, the monarch ceded power to the Church of the Silver Flame. The official head of state is now an eleven year old girl who has the unique power to commune with the Silver Flame directly, although she allows High Cardinal Crozan to handle most of the day to day decision making. Technically, the old monarchy still does exist in an advisory role, and local rule is enforced by the same nobility that ruled before Thrane became a theocracy.
- I don't remember reading too much about Aundair's current government other than they have a queen, but they lost a lot of land during the Last War (some because they had to let it secede, some was seized), and if the war were to break out again, a lot of them want it back.
It's weird how both Danaerys and Azula had power-mad fathers, were driven by dreams of world domination, commanded huge armies, used spies and deceit to get what they wanted, ruthlessly punished dissent, were obsessed with incinerating their enemies, went completely insane by the end, and got defeated by their relatives.
I think you misunderstood Danaerys character. Well her character writing did randomly change in the season and a half, so I guess you are kinda correct.
DANY Didn't went mad,as in insane. She just went mad, as in very angry.
Finally, a video that appeals to me!
Grandad? Is that you?
@King Edward - I seem to see you quite often . 😂
Greetings, fellow Toxic Brooder
What are your thoughts on your portrayal in Braveheart?
Crusader Kings introduced me to Enatic-Cognatic where males only inherit if there are no available female. Saving this vid for ideas
Crusader Kings taught me to
Immediately change from gavelkind.
The Swedish King has the most original crown I've ever seen
All embrace me
It’s my time to rule at last!
There's clear-cut (if not logical) inheritance systems.
Then there's tanistry...
Also known as Gaelic Thunderdome
@@Pandercolour One king enters! Twenty-six kings leave!
Funny that in ck2 tanistry is objectively the best system lmao
@@khoiduongminh5111 arguably eldership is just upgraded tanistry.
@@khoiduongminh5111 Eldership tho
With regard to the good king/good kingdom question, I half agree. Yes, a good ruler won't necessarily make everything all right, but a bad ruler can definitely screw things up pretty badly (usually by getting involved in a bunch of pointless wars).
What makes a "good" or "bad" ruler in a society doesn't necessarily correspond with what makes someone make good or bad decisions.
Time Table/Time Stamps
00:23 - Types of Monarchy
07:14 - De Jure vs. De Facto Power
10:50 - Communication, Control, and Commerce
19:13 - Royal Court
22:32 How Monarchies Collapse
27:08 - A Good Kingdom A Good King Make Not
30:11 - Summary
Thanks!
Malaysia has a unique form of elective monarchy in which there is a collection of 13 Sultans that take turns as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, cycling through the roster of 13 kings every 4 years.
*mentions elective monarchy* WHEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!
Coming down the mountainside!
*HRE NOISES*
Dead Ottoman noises
...Sabaton is an elective monarchy?
@@ptcarbonproductions2013 they are. Joakim just rigged the elections.
Damn, last time i was this early, the frankish empire still existed.
I have been wanting to suggest something for you to talk about ever since you made your video about first person perspectives, but I kept forgetting to mention it. I was thinking you could do a video about using multiple perspectives. I don't really know the right word for it, but it generally works as follows. Chapter 1 is about character A, chapter 2 is about character B, chapter 3 is about character A etc. etc. etc. You could talk about when to use it. What are things you have to look out for. What it adds to the story and other things. You could also talk about the fourth witcher book, where there was a part of the story where there were like 30 different point of view characters.
You're describing "Multiple POV Writing"! :) (Just to be helpful and give you a term for it.)
Rick Riordan's Kane Chronicles and Heroes of Olympus are good examples of this.
@@emc246 Haven't read Kane Chronicles but I'd actually argue this is a place that HoO actually failed in my opinion. Characters I cared about were given significantly less perspective time than the ones I didn't feel like I'd been given more than very generic reasons to care about. A good example; we should have seen Nico's perspective and his struggles with sexuality and acceptance earlier in the series. It would have given us some extreme weight to his role in House of Hades, to the Pomegranate Seed Thing, etc. Too many perspective characters and too rigid a pattern resulted in incredibly bland chapters from certain characters when the pacing should have been more snappy. I regularly argue that the second book should have been switched with the first, even with the minor chronology issues it would cause; it would have been a smoother and more compelling introduction to the format after the first person style of the preceding series. (Not at all related to POV but may I also just say HoO is one of the most poorly edited books I've seen go to print? I've never found so many typos in a printed YA/kidlit book honestly. I love this series and the characters but... hooooo boy.)
@@GrimmDelightsDice I meant that they were good because they include it, not necessarily because they are good books. HoO is definitely a mess, but could be used to show what not to do, and I remember him using Percy Jackson in videos before, so I figured he would be familiar with the books.
EM11212 The Kane Chronicles were a good example of this because they switched between two back and forth consistently so no one perspective ever got snubbed. HoO was bad because the seven perspectives highlighted badly how Riordan only writes three kinds of protagonists.
Just what I needed for my D&D worldbuilding! Thank you so much HelloFutureMe, your worldbuilding videos are massively helpful!
same
“Women can be monarchs too”
*Daenerys gives a thumbs up behind a burning field*
"#Women-can-be-dictators-too"**
is what the video said.
BUT LMAO
Everything leads back to the British Empire.
Literally everything.
And British Empire lead back to Roman Empire.
Cause all ways lead back to Rome.
Thanks British Empire, very cool.
"All roads lead to the brits... which leads to rome."
@@37robinb in which the Romans would lead to Greece 😕
@@judeconstantine2767 Which leads to Egypt Which leads to Mesopotamia Which leads to:
Ooga Boogas.
Episode 5: the British empire strikes back
Lowe Expectations 66 likes. Perfection.
I would like but you have 69 likes
Not anymore. Dun dun dunnnnnn
Note on the French Revolution: the idea that the king was automatically blamed for everything is itself a bit of a myth, at least to the extent of it leading to him being executed. The French Revolution was a period that lasted for several years and at first the change was to a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. The king wasn't arrested until evidence was discovered of the royal family plotting with the Austrians to overthrow the government and re-establish absolute monarchy. It's true that there was plenty of tension between the royals and the revolutionaries even before that but the king wasn't executed just for being the king. He was being accused of treason and they had valid evidence against him.
It's true that Louis XVI wasn't a particularly horrible king. He wasn't a particularly good one either. He was just a normal guy in a bad situation and I assume he felt like he had the duty to protect the tradition that put his family in power. But he was on the wrong side of history. Also he probably spent too much time listening to his wife and his brothers who were all very conservative and hostile towards the democratic changes made by the revolutionaries.
@Syksy Right/wrong side of history is a fallacy. The reality is the revolution existed in two phases, the first led by the rural aristocracy against his pro-urban reforms, and the second led by the urbanites against the new noble-controlled constitutional monarchy. The reality is the King was just an obstacle that needed to be overcome, for both the conservative nobles and the revolutionary urbanites.
I would argue there is no wrong side of history:
Only what ended up happening and who won.
@@falsename226 I think there were a lot more phases, personally. Also what are you even talking about, the first phase was led by the rural aristocracy? There were indeed aristocrats involved in the revolution, but it was not their revolution in any sense. The whole thing started with the representatives of _the third estate_ calling for rebellion.
As for their motivations, it's true that the various groups involved in the revolution were in part motivated by self-interest. Particularly in terms of the wealthy bourgeoisie seeing its chance to improve its station in society. There's a lot to critique about their aims too. But your narrative is just bizarre and I have no idea where you're getting this. And the fact that many of the revolutionaries were motivated by a sense of justice and a wish to improve society is undeniable.
@@darknessml6145 That's cute. I don't have time for time to argue over moral relativism, though.
@@darknessml6145
Agreed, but I must add that the myth of a right/wrong side of history is beneficial for the winner who will likely claim that they were on the right side of history.
This also apply to us and the already mentioned blaming of the french monarch for everything that happened in the french revolution, we live in a republican world where the mindset of modern societies being inherently superior to past societies is the norm, so obviously these myths follow the interest of those who have this same view.
While I may the point of monarchies being a less effective political system depending on the context we're talking about, in our case it's part of the interest of our society that the fall of monarchies as a inferior form of government is seen as a inevitability and a requirement for the so called "progress of history".
But that's a story for another WHAT IF.
Wait, wrong channel.
😂😂😂😂 lol
👍
Remember, Kings are PEOPLE... I'll give you an example from reality that to most people outside my country is likely not as well known, but I think illustrate this point well.
"It's possible you are so scared you dare not follow me on this journey... However I shall complete my plans without you and nothing shall make me listen to that kind of ridicules advice from a coward!"
- Valdemar the Victorious of Denmark when advised not to travel through Germany to visit the Emperor
Absalon (Valdemars closest adviser and friend) tells Valdemar that Skaanen rebels have chased him out of the area, Valdemar threatens to kill every single one of the rebels
"The king asked the messenger move aside, sighed deeply and under four eyes complained to Absalon that neither family obligations nor good deeds had been able to protect him against evil intrigues from his relatives."
- Valdemar the Victorious when informed about Magnus Eriksens treason.
So here we got a guy who clearly got a bit of a temper, cares deeply for his family and friends (spoiler, he didn't execute Magnus which people believed he should have), but at times it seems the crown also weighs on him a bit. I mean he weren't a saint, I just picked these as they showed different part of his personality (I thought) and frankly there is both a limit to what you can gather on one of the first kings of Denmark and what I can write before repeating myself.
Would love to hear your take on the elected monarchy of Naboo i.e. Queen Amidala
I've always thought it was interesting that the main villain and the original princess came from the same planet, but nothing about either of their stories really reflects that it gives it the weight it deserves. Like ... Was Palpatine obsessed with power because he came from a society that deemed it impossible for him to divinely deserve power? Alternatively, I always supported the "Rey is a Palpatine" theory back even when it was a crack theory, way back, way back in Force Awakens, because I liked the idea of Palpatine finally giving into his culture and putting some sort of divine sense of providence on his granddaughter. In a Star Wars book, a niece of Palpatine was put in place by the Empire to be the empress after he fell. And of course she was stylized in anabu way so she looked very similar to Padme. And the New Republic actually negotiated to allow her to be an empress under a new constitution, but before the negotiations could be finalized, she was assassinated. I just wish that the movies had drew more inspiration from the old expanded universe.
Naboo elected 14 year old Armadillo to the throne as a joke gone too far.
@@Cityweaver man I agree I really wish they pulled it off better in ros because I thought the twist was a good idea that if crafted better would have been really cool
@@joemamajoastar8708 Honestly I always saw it as Palpatine being a sith first, but him being a peasant who clawed his way through Politics and wanted to declare his lineage King would have been so much cooler. Especially if the New Republic turned into a Constitutional Monarchy with Thrawne and Palpatine's son at the center.
If they turned the collapsed of the Empire into a sort of French Revolution period where everyone was vying for power. The story would have been a lot cooler.
@@Cityweaver Palpatine is a Sith Lord. They are chosen by their predecessor because they are absolute psychopaths with great potential, and a thirst por power and knowledge. Him wanting to be emperor is more in line with the Sith ideology than anything Naboo related. The fact that he chose emperor as his title instead of king is a direct reference to the Sith Emperors who used to have their own state before 1032 BBY.
It has everything to do with the teachings of his master, Darth Plagueis, which was himself the last in a line of succession going back to Darth Bane and the last Sith Empire. This has nothing to do with Naboo and realistically Darth Vader would have been the next emperor in case of Darth Sidious' premature death as is Sith tradition and not any blood relatives.
The idea that Møre was it's own kingdom is hilarious to me. Also I love all the different countries' leadership structures Thedas (the world of deagon age) they're all so intresting and different.
“A king is he who can hold his own, or else his title is vain.” - Maedhros Fëanorion
I’m reminded of a brutal, complicated yet simplistic order of rule in a Science Fantasy race the Orks from Warhammer 40K their social structure is based on size and power. The stronger and Ork is the bigger they are and they get big through battle. If an Ork wants to be the Boss they challenge the current boss and if the challenger dies it reinforces the current bosses rule. It’s a clan based structure. Theirs a Boss, Big Boss, War Boss and Over Boss. The Overboss is essentially the Ork King over the race and is consequently the biggest and strongest (so far until they die and another really strong Ork gets named Overboss.
Okay I need to start writing, I've been lazy these past few weeks. This was the inspiration I needed.
Monarchy: Exists
Revolutionaries: so you have chosen death.
Napoleon: I have chosen Usurpation!
0:23 Types of Monarchy
7:14 De jure vs. De Facto Power
10:50 Communication, Control and Commerce
19:13 Royal Court
22:32 How Monarchies Collapse
27:08 A good kingdom A good king make not
30:11 Summary
The best monarchy is Anarcho-Monarchy
King without a state!
So the former Duke of Windsor Edward?
King of Romania?
There is historical presidence for this.
Pfft, I wrote up a communist princess, although the practical details of it ended up being underdeveloped.
I was just thinking would Peter Pan be an anarcho-monarch? He's king of the lost boys but doesn't really have a kingdom does he? I mean I guess there's Neverland, but it kind of seems like he just lives there not rules it, especially seeing as how he runs from Captain Hook.
Timing of this couldn't be more perfect. Currently working on a story with multiple ruling monarchs and a complex system of inheritance, and I was about to start working on the functions of the rest of the court. This vid has given me some great inspiration and now I know what to focus on. Thanks Tim!
"I will rule on Mondays, Dave will rule on Tuesdays, Matt will rule on Wednesdays, Jason will rule on Thursdays... And on Fridays, nobody's in charge. Absolute anarchy."
Thank you for this! I’ve got the kingdoms in my book established but the monarchs are still being worked on. Thank you good sir!
This was more of a history lesson then a writing lesson, but no less awesome.
writing is most effective when you understand what you're writing to be fair, writing is never just about writing, it's what you're writing about
Bro i just finished watching a jenna moreci video and came to this and you mentioned her, incredible!
Same x)
Yup!
**waits patiently for an On Writing: Anti-Heroes**
OSP recently did a really good video on them that I highly recommend. Look up "Trope Talks: Anti-Heroes".
Being Swedish, I appreciated the picture you chose for the Swedish king.
You are so good at explaining this. I'm already working on my own fictional monarchy in my head.
23:45 As a Swede, I approve this image of our king.
I had an idea of a monarch empire with 5 main houses electing the next king for a short term, while also making the house that had a kong not being able to get another one until the next 2 terms. This could make a potentionally interesting situation, since it not only manages to avoid becoming a succesion monarchy, but also makes an interesting game of chess between those houses that can compete for next term. While 1 still have to wait for another house to have a term, and the one that has this terms king have to decide which of 3 potentional candidates to support.
I was just working on how I wanted a -dictatorship- republic to work in my fantasy setting, and so this gave me a few things to think about.
The video is mostly very well written and researched, but there are some details that I would like to point out. The video is made from a republican point of view (in the traditional sense, not the party), and it loses some of the newances of monarchy. On some points of importance:
1. An elective Monarchy will always be much weaker and unstable than a successive one. The Prince Electors of the HRE often voted for weak rulers so that their inerests would be safe, and foreing interference in the polish royal elections was a staple of the commonwealth's waning years.
2. While Monarchs can and sometimes were petty, this is the exception rather than the norm. More often than not, these apparently small actions of whimp have a well tought political objective. For example, when recently the Saudi crown prince lifted the restriction on women driving, it wasn't out of the goodness of his heart or his disdain for his culture, but to send a message to the religious authorities of his realm, as to remind them who is in charge with something small enought that they wouldn't make a huge problem out of it.
3. While it is true that the King can only do so much for the welfare of his realm, this is highly dependent on the time period. A medieval duchy, for example requires a much more basic set of skills to be correctly administrated than a modern nation, and thus it is often the case that, power being absolute, the first will benefit much more of a good king, while the second will suffer much more with a bad one. For example, the collapse of the Russian Empire was greatly, even mostly, the result of the incompetent Nicholas II having to deal with challenges that the greatest of his ancestors would have struggled with, even if he had the best of intentions and a deep love for his people. TL/DR: A simpler society is more resistant of poor rulers and easier to prosper under good ones, while a mor complex society is more reliably prosperous, but harder to make boom and more vulnerable to a poor ruler if his personal power is far reaching.
4. The preservation of a monarchy needs not be by reform or weakening the crown's power, as the incredibly stable, albeit often tyrannical arab monarchies remember us. If the crown is a powerful agent in it's own right, it may succeed in quashing calls for reform without giving an inch of it's power.
On some particular historical details:
1. The "Beard Tax" Peter I imposed was not out of pettiness or the emperor's facial hair taste; but a part of changing the mindset of the russian nobility and how Europe perceived russia. At the time, it was a backwater at the end of the world and in desperate need of reform, and the beard tax was a symbol of a much wider transformation.
2. Elective Monarchies, even those that eventually became successive, lasted for centuries, as great houses rose and fell. The Holy Roman Empire eventually came under direct controll of the Habsburgs, but before that it lasted from Otto I in 962, to 1440, when the first Habsburg occupied the Imperial dignity, and even then their hold was much weaker than it would be. That's 476 years. Likewise, the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth lasted elective for 223 years.
3. Talking about Cromwell as a monarch is not only wrong, but downright insulting. The man was a military dictator and a regicidal tyrant, not a king. Dictatorships and monarchies work by different rules and are bound by different interests.
4. Mercantilism as an economical philosophy had more to do with a misunderstanding of the nature of commerce than with monarchical power. I.E: The Dutch Republic favored merchantilism as it's economic policy, not because their (non existing) king did, but because it was the predominant economic theory of the time.
Please forgive any typos, not a native speaker.
HRE has many powerful rules is a myth that HRE monarchy was always weak (Ottonian dynasty , Salian Dynasty and Hohenstaufen were in their time the most powerful dynasties in europe )
These are all totally fair points! History is always going to be more nuanced than I am capable of talking about in a 30 minute video. Though I will note that the point about Oliver Cromwell was a point about unitary authorities which applies to monarchs and dictatorships, and elective monarchies that last a long time are historically the exception to the rule.
~ Tim
The Kingdoms of the Norse(Norway in particular) and Kievan Rus in their Pagan periods were also successful. And the Chinese Han and Tang dynasties were good as well.
I love your worldbuilding series so much! Thank you for continuing to share these.
Personally I'm working now on determining how a genuinely immortal emperor would impact the rest of the structure of a medium-sized and very isolationist society. This has given me a lot to think about.
How the monarch came into power may influence succession. If it's through might, then making sure the monarch is a good warrior (trained by his father perhaps) is important. If it was by uniting lands through diplomacy against a common threat, then they'll likely be behind the lines or at home doing paperwork or maintaining good relations between different parts of the kingdom, so the monarch will have to be able to command respect without violence (meaning whatever the different subcultures can agree on will be the means of succession). However, I'm at odds with George R.R. Martin on this (as I tend to be, though not always) as I think fantasy requires only enough grounding to make it believable; fantasy is a good dinner, and having a bit of dessert at the end is usually best.
Well if anything goes by fantasy, GRRM's works are more of an anti-fantasy than a legit one. Fantasies don't necessarily have to delve into politics to be believable
Perfect timing for what I'm working on right now. Thanks :)
how is your comment 3 days old? And this is why we can't have time travelers
Exactly
There is really a whole lot more to mercantilism than it just being "wrong theory" in service of upholding waning monarchical power.
It's really one of the first attempts to develope a coherent economic theory in early modern society and a whole lot of new concepts were introduced that medieval monarchies really didn't think all that much about. For example the idea of having policies targeting the growth of population, perceiving population as national ressource. The idea of actually influencing exports vs. imports and that having more exports would mean more wealth would flow into the country, too, is somewhat that previously wasn't thought about all that much (usually just resorting to taxing trade).
And, more importantly, it was tightly linked to changes in military technology. The spread of gunpowder weapons and the subsequent focus on standing professional armies, with the peasant levies of the medieval era slowly becoming less and less important. Mercantilism was focused on maximising monetary income for the state in order to pay for the growing upkeep of growing standing armies.
In doing so, mercantilism actually laid many of the foundations of modern capitalism, forcibly converting a lot of pre-modern subsistence economy into money based (taxable!) economy. Colonial exploitation, things like the enclosures, workhouses and manufacturies, were all tightly linked to this developement.
23:51
One of these things is not like the others
One thing you forgot to talk about when worldbuilding monarchies are how to interact with the press in your world. Do they have complete control of the press in your world (such as in North Korea) or do they allow certain newspapers access to writing stories about your royals (Such as the Royal Rota in the United Kingdom).
15:58 Can I just say that I love how he uses Anna to represent the Merchant class. 😁
the country much of my fantasy story is set in ends up being a diarchy, ruled by one person with magic, and one without. Discrimination against magic people is ingrained into the society, and the protagonist, after taking the archonship from the previous Archon, sets the diarchy up in an attempt to change this. As a side note, while the rulership was previously a monarchy with the eldest daughter with magic being heir, the Archon wanted to change it so that rulership was electoral, but only between a set of candidates with the most powerful magic. Other countries in the world have lots of other ways of doing things that incorporate the magic system and the ways it has affected their culture and values. I'm really proud of it!
Do not under any circumstances touch the Queen's corgis. She will immediately evaporate you with her laser eyes.
This is a much more in depth explanation for those shallow people who simply thinks of just monarchy bad, democracy good I've seen in comments around these days.
Omg this is perfect, I clicked so fast!!
I love how, in Dragon Age, they show two completely different statuses mages can have, based on what country they are in. In Tevinter, mages rule, and the more powerful your magic, the more political power you have (to a degree- family ties matter too). In the Southern kingdoms or city-states, mages are kept away from the rest of society and only let out when a monarch wants to use them in battle. I love the depth of Dragon Age's worldbuilding.
Clearly George RR didn't really pay attention to the LOTR books. Its made pretty clear that Gondor is struggling only because of Sauron's efforts, so once he is defeated the Kingdom can resume its activity that made it such a powerhouse.....plus we don't hear much of Aragorn's actualy kingship because, you know, its not a politics story, we had a hobbits story to wrap up.
This video earned this channel a subscribition! I will check out the rest of the catalog!
Great video!
I wish you had mentioned something about how a magical/fantasy version or analogue to the concept of the "divine right to rule" might play out. What if the king actually is magically or otherwise empowered to rule, either directly, or indirectly through the magical powers they receive. And what would happen if the Monarchy which needs it's ruler collapses?
I guess in part it goes under the scope of resources the monarch is in control of. But I still really love it when you start looking at more fantasy/sci-fi twists on things in detail.
every time I come to your channel, I'm blown away by just how intelligent you are and how wonderfully you're able to craft these videos. stunning work, as always
As somebody who has made efforts to write a few different types of monarchies in his fiction, I appreciate this video! Stay well out there everybody, and Jesus Christ be with you friends.😊
In D&D games I’m O find that the DM almost always has the are De Jure power and De Facto power be one and the same. Also no one in government breaks or bends laws (or makes a mistake). It can be a little emersion breaking too.
My favorite monarchy system is that of the Gelfling (pre-Jen that is)
Basically it was like this:
Eldest daughter gets the throne, gaining the title of Maudra of her clan.
The Maudra of the Vapra clan is called the All-Maudra and represents all 7 clans.
I mean technically the Skeksis are in charge but still I like the whole Maudra thing
Your work is far more valuable than what I am currently able to donate monthly. Thank you so much!
The system I have in place is essentially that the king acts in a similar role to Queen Victoria where he owns the land but doesn’t bother with the day to day, instead leaving that up to his council. To join the council one must: defeat a member to replace them, have an invention to improve the live of the people, and make a certain amount every month for the past three months.
Interesting. Keep at it!
In your description/pinned comment you forgot to add that the strange women lying in ponds are distributing swords. That’s a vital piece of information…
ah our glorious Swedish king, with a crown that fits him!^^
I’ve been basing much of one of my kingdoms off of Ancient Roman government. In the process of research, I found that the Ancient Roman kings (not emperors) were elected, but many times the same families would be elected back into the monarchy as you mentioned.
Tim watches Jenne Moreci's videos too?! **happy noises**
Reads her books anyway. He pronounced her name differently than she herself did, though
I just found your channel like yesterday and I am binge watching your videos like a maniac. I just started to work on my lifelong dream to become a writer and your videos are pure gold, thank you! It's also satisfying to see that I already implement many of the things you discuss in your videos, but they are nevertheless an absolute treasure. Keep up the good work
this made me think of how a species/culture that I'm working on expands as they're a tribe based culture, and shortly after thinking of the question I realized that established and confident females, as they are Matriarchal, leave the tribe/Clan they rule over to a younger queen as a rite of passage but also as a way of giving her experience in her role for when it comes time for her to either take over from a dying tribe/clan queen or when setting up her own tribe/clan
Thanks for this video, as a History teacher i realised that i wanst considerating monarchies deep enougth in my class
I don't really care about worldbuuilding, but I like listening to him talk social science so here I am.
Hey! I discovered your channel recently, and I love your videos on world building.
The problem is that I'm french, and if I'm pretty confident in my english, I still struggle to understand everything you say. Would you consider to put english subtitles in your videos?
I think I'm not the only one in this case, and since you probably have a script, it shouldn't be too long.
However, if my request is inappropriate, excuse me, I'm not a youtuber myself and I don't exactly know how much work it needs to subtitle a video.
We need a video on writing main character companions or supporting leads. Im not sure really how to approach this subject.
More than one monarch can exist ruling one kingdom or nation. Sparta had two kings reigning at once, such a unique way of ruling could end succession and civil wars. Let’s see. Thirteen monarchs with thirteen princes and princesses all groomed and ready to succeed them - both a senate and monarchy in one group. In such a situation I would create a meritocratic-monarchy. A tiered citizenship system where the highest level of citizenship makes you a viable prince/princess should you be chosen and crowned as successor. This is built in such a way that people are forced to be honest with others and themselves in order to ascend in citizenship.
Citizenship One is the default - all inherent and natural rights are guaranteed and protected such as property and speech. You can live your life freely and without struggle without ever moving up.
Citizenship Two - this level requires two brutal years of military training and service (a total of four years) and must show signs of climbing the ranks.
This list goes on another three levels with challenges getting harder and more of them to do with each level.
Sparta isn't a monarchy it was a diarchy. Hence the mon in monarchy mon means one
@@mikeoxsmal8022 I think the video should have been about royalty instead of monarchy. I feel that monarchy can be a bit restrictive in term of worldbuilding.
Egypt also often had two kings. The father would make the son king while he still ruled which helped prevent succession conflicts and taught the son how to rule, kind of like an apprenticeship.
@@mikeoxsmal8022 I think you're kind of splitting hairs here.
I'm also reminded of the time when there was three popes.
there is a frase that encapsulate what does make a good monarch, its not if he is good, its not if it cruel, it is when they can assume the responsability and take the better choice for hus kingdom "Heavy is the weight of the one who bore the crown"
12:08 I would recommend looking into Battletech. In particular, the structure of the HPG network. It's such an integral part of how the various rulers communicate among their respective states that the single company that gained control over it - Comstar - has become the de facto ruler of the majority of the setting up until the Jihad era. It's a setting where, if any of the other states' intelligence services has information, Comstar will have that information because they *have* to use the HPG network to communicate it through their empire. It's to the point where Comstar can - and will - start wars between the various states in order to maintain a balance of power
A very interesting real world monarchy is Montenegro. As a confederation of highland clans (no relation to Scotland) opposing the Ottomans, where many clans had longstanding and bloody rivalries, they picked a member of the clergy to rule as “prince-bishop”, since the church was seen as above clan rivalries. Over time, power centralized in the house of Petrović-Njegoš, a family of merchants claiming descent from medieval Serbian nobility, who formed a successive but still theocratic monarchy. Though Orthodox priests can have wives and kids, bishops cannot, so the succession passed to a nephew, not a son. Their last prince-bishop, Nikola, secularized the country, declaring himself prince and later king
I’ve thought of an interesting model for monarchy, in your video about religion I commented on a particular faction who rely strongly on the fishing industry. Their monarchy would be very interesting in my opinion if the king himself participated in the Industry, this would be a very good strategic way to ensure that the people believe he or she understands their troubles, as well it would be an elected monarchy, where the king or queen serves for life. This would make moots for a new king extremely valuable events, and could lead to prominent fishing captains being elected as king.
Seems like something that would evolve out of a fishing tribe. Cool!
Can I just say that I'm trying to write a fantasy novel right now, and this series of videos on worldbuilding is really helping me out.
AZULA IS THE FIRELORD OF MY HEART 🔥
I mean she did actually become firelord but only because her Dad wanted a new title
I wish they would have explored this more in the second avatar series. I mean, really, Zukko didn't best her in Agni Ki. And given Zukko's young age (and the avatar's even younger age), the resentment most of the rest of the world most likely would have had for the Fire Nation, the Fire Nation possibly having to pay reparations for the destruction they caused, the massive hit the Fire Nation's economy would most likely take, and possible restrictions put on there military, and I think many people of the Fire Nation probably would reject him as Fire Lord, seeing him as weak and an imposter, and possibly seek her out with the intentions of putting her back on the throne (since the old Fire Lord can't bend anymore). Kind of like Germany after WW1 and building up to WW2.
@@TheDcraft too bad they shit the bed with Kora because muh 20s *Aesthetic*
Debakuva *Zuko
Debakuva Zuko is the eldest son. Therefore his claim to the throne is unquestionable.
you are wonderfully succinct, its more like a checklist for 'have you considered this and if not, take a lead or two and get at it'