The concept of the "State" in fantasy settings

[urdinaran]

Since there are such intelligent and knowledgeable persons who frequent this forum, I decided to throw this one out there and get a consensus of what others think about the following:

Basically, the concept of the State or Country, a concept which did not exist in medieval times. The reason I bring it up is because so many fantasy writers' worlds (REH's included) or pre-published campaign worlds contain states/countries that seem to have very static seeming boundaries; as an example, Germany didn't exist as a state till sometime in the late 1800's (not quite sure, I'm at work, so be gentle).

Why do I bring this up? Maybe I would like to bring a bit of realism to my games. I know, you're gonna say "suspension of disbelief", and "it's a fantasy world". Maybe I just want things to make a little more sense; maybe I believe that things are a certain way for a reason; Maybe I don't believe that wirters should just say things are a certain way without doing a little homework or at least considering the impact that events in one era may have on a later one.

What do you all think? Please be nice.

 

[Yogah of Yag]

Superb point. I was just thinking about this the other day when scrutinizing the map in RoK. People in times past usually thought of themselves as a citizen of a city-state (e.g. Renaissance Italy, that is, Milanese, Venitian, Roman, etc.), but nationalism probably did not come around until the 19th c. We see a little of this in REH's work. For example, Gunderland was part of Aquilonia, but the Gundermen related to their homeland, but not as much to the Aquilonian "empire", IMHO. And I really doubt that the Cimmerians would shout the battle-cry "Cimmeria!" but instead the name of their clan. This is what the ancient tribes did before they leapt into battle, according to the Latin texts (Caesar, Tacitus).
They did not shout "For Gaul!", but "Ambrones!" and so forth. When looking at the Hyborian maps, I tend to "ignore" the borders of nations and focus more on the natural boundaries (rivers, mts, coastlines). Conan did, however, identify himself as "Cimmerian" and not "of the Canach clan."

 

[Furie]

1. It is a fantasy world. More importantly, perhaps, it is a fantasy world developed when the concepts of nationalism were relatively new, which might explain REH's approach.

2. You might look at the ROK map as a snapshot. Borders are never that clear over the long term.

3. I believe (and I could be wrong), the Romans drew up maps that referred to specific lands by name. They had their Empire, sure, but they referred to Ireland as Hybernia even though they never conquered it per se and it was hardly what I would refer to as a nation (as an easy example). It would be interesting to see when it was exactly that our favorite barbarian referred to himself as a Cimmerian and if REH gave it any thought, or dare I say it, even cared?

 

[Lastman]

I see the borders as ballpark estimates or a snapshot at one point in time. My campaign is set in early Hyboria, pre-Conan.

A world map with borders is metagame info that the player characters, or even NPCs would never see. There's no systematic, coordinated, cartographer network in my game. I use one during character creation to give them a sense of scale and relative positions, but I use small tactical maps during gaming.

I've explained to my players that veteran scouts traveling with armies or seasoned caravan traders would know their limited routes very well, and might make local maps, but a comprehensive satellite-view map would not exist in game. Since illiteracy is common in my take on the world, characters have to rely on hopefully trustworthy sources for directions.

There's a free photo-editing program (similar to Photoshop) called the GIMP (Gnu Image Mapipulation Program) that I've found to be very useful for mapping. Here's what I do:

1. I learned to make custom brushes and patterns from a tutorial and made a one inch square. I saved the square as a pattern. Then used the bucket-fill feature to fill a white 8x10 background with it to get my starting sheet with gridlines.

2. Then add another layer of white to obscure the 1-inch grid sheet completely. Then use the Eraser tool to un-obsure the relevant gridlines on the map. It's like the old school art project where you'd heavily color a picture with black crayon and scrape it off in a pattern to reveal the masterpiece underneath.

3. Then add a transparent layer and name it terrain. This is where I draw contour lines for hills or draw pits, boulders, or immovable wreckage. You could also make a cobblestone brush for roads in civilized areas, or a pillar brush, or whatever. I design my brushes to fit into a 1 inch square for precision, but you could make them as large as you want if you dislike clicking a lot to paint a sheet.

4. Then add another transparent layer and name it foliage. I've made custom brushes for jungles and coniferous forests. You could also add a little number on the terrain and foliage brushes to indicate that jungle slows movement by 25%, or trackless jungle by 75% etc.

The amount of layers you can add is limited only by your RAM, but I've not needed more than 5 per map and this old PC handles that just fine.

I prefer laying maps on the table as they come into view to drawing and erasing on vinyl or plastic battle mats because it doesn't require interruption of play. Random backup maps can be used for unplanned encounters.

I hope this local mapping interlude didn't stray too far off topic. Large scale metainfo maps are fine for establishing scale, but local maps are key to giving adventurers a sense of place and immediate surroundings to explore.

The thread called Argosy of Blood has some great tips from a seasoned GM, including one about localizing to generate enthusiasm in players.

 

[Mark Dunder]

In the Tower of the Elephant, the Kothian braggert said to Conan, "I suppose you are some sort of norther barbarian--" To which Conan replies, "I am a Cimmerian," then he kills the Koth after the lights go out.

So Conan has a sense of belonging to a larger group of people early on in his life. Later he becomes king of Aquilonia, and sees the Gundermen, Bossonians and Poitainians as all part of greater Aquilonia.

As far as borders are concerned, Conan knew he was on Aquilonian soil, and went to the aid of one of his "subjects," the seer that told him he needed to find the heart of his kingdom. Later he let Trocero know that "I but wish to hold what is mine," when Trocero wanted to "annex" Zingara with Poitain.

I have no idea if that answers any of your questions on state or nationalism as regards Conan, but perhaps the people during this pre-history saw this differently than people of our own fairly recent past.

 

[Evil_Trevor]

I would argue, 'cause I like arguing', that the 'identity' of cimmerian is about what type of person Conan identifies with rather than a particular geographical area. The cimmerians are a group of people with a common culture, set of beliefs and most importantly language. Cimmeria is where they live.

 

[Castel]

I think national notion of what a country is, exists in the hyborian kingdoms, and even barbarian lands.

This thing of national identity was born when blood bonds were lost between cities, and they tried to keep close relations, inventing this notion of common past.

Hyborian kingdoms have this very developed, and even in zingara (wich i consider to work on the Hyborian model) they have this notion, even if they are allways in civil war.

Cimmerian probably all consider themselves as brothers, but even brothers can fight each other.

Nordheimer are diferent, having the hair color as national caracteristic.

Pelintshemits and medow shemits really don´t have a national identity, the consider their cities and sorrounding lands their small kingdoms.

Nomadic tribes have some cities, but don´t have much of a national identity.

Savage tribes focus only in their tribe, being normally agressive to all who are strangers, and only live in the soroundings of their village.

Conan was very diferent from the average joe, and was destined to be the "imperialistic unifier" like hitler, napoleon, cesar, etc...
actually i think that Aquilonia works in a model between the United states and the European Union, were you´ve got several zones wich have diferent caracteristics and terretorial notions, but in the end, they are all aquilonian.

Poitian are really close to Zingarian, but there were many wars in that frontier, i think much hate flows between those two "races".
I don´t think a ruler trying to conquer Zingara would be a very smart one, it makes much sense as hiring Zamorian thiefs to guard your treasure.
Zingara s allmost unrulable, the lack of a common goal makes them live in almost complete anarchy, but there is always hope for them...

 

[Oly]

Basically, the concept of the State or Country, a concept which did not exist in medieval times. The reason I bring it up is because so many fantasy writers' worlds (REH's included) or pre-published campaign worlds contain states/countries that seem to have very static seeming boundaries; as an example, Germany didn't exist as a state till sometime in the late 1800's (not quite sure, I'm at work, so be gentle).

There are exceptions. England's been pretty well defined as a nation for a very long time, likewise the same for Scotland. William Wallace is an example of well defined sense of nationhood existing around about 1300 and it had been in existence for a while before that. You could argue that the Roman invasion of Britain was the starting point of there being a separate concept of "England" and that's going back nearly 2000 years.

As said there are plenty of exceptions where borders were very fluid and the nations are relatively young but that's not the only way that things would be.

 

[Bregales]

IIRC, we don't have access to the maps that Howard drew himself but most model after the maps written by 2 fans to Howard in the 30s, who was it (hate writing at work :roll: )?

Anyway, if I recall, Howard wrote that boarders were suggestions and were fluid, as treaties, skirmishes and wars constantly changed the boarders of the various kingdoms when he wrote his long reply letter to them.

Sorry, I'm really drawing a blank here, but my work program is crashing and I can't get access so jumped to the site but mind's still on work.

 

[Castel]

Well borders depend of the situation between the two countries, war means that they are fighting, defining new borders.
Peace times lead to static international borders, but internal borders tend to give way to disputes between the nobles and other situations.

But one thing is for sure, borders are never static...

Actually an Hiborian shoudn´t even know of the existance of some kingdoms...

This gives birth to a new tipe of adventure, a party with a carthografer sent to make maps for Invasion/Commerce/etc of unknown kingdoms...

 

[Mark Dunder]

Oh, I think people are terribly aware of borders, whether natural or not. Do you remember that the Cimmerians stopped their feuding long enough to sack Vanarium? They definitely had a good idea just where their territory started and ended.

This may not extend to their sense of government. They may have an identity as a people, but not be aware of having one governmental body. A King or Queen gives people a sense of state. If the state lasts long enough, they may begin to have a feeling of national pride.

REH had a sense of "history." Borders change over a period of time. Also, conquerers will change borders of a "state." The Bossonians, Gundermen, Poitanian, and other "ethnic" groups will always have a feeling of where their territory ends. The had a "national" pride in being "part" of Aquilonia, particularly if the King of Aquilonia just happened to be Conan!

 

[Lastman]

"Actually an Hiborian shoudn´t even know of the existance of some kingdoms... "

Exactly. Metagaming is my pet peeve so I've dwelt on this too much... The PC's scope of knowledge is strictly local because their worldview is closer to that of cavemen than to ours. Considering the limits of technology, and the amount of work required for day-to-day survival, it would be odd for the typical person to wonder about the locations of the offical borders. "Have the Picts crossed the river this winter? No? Good, now get back to your chores or we'll starve."

A campaign would have to have a macro-scope for the players to even be concerned with the locations of borders on a map. A Noble or Scholar leader, his Generals, and a bunch of their Borderers might have an idea of non-natural borders if they painstakingly pieced together the info from all the scouts. Even then it would be hard to justify the expense, effort, and risk to undertake such a task when natural borders are so intuitive and would be the norm for most of the populace.

 

[Yogah of Yag]

"Have the Picts crossed the river this winter? No? Good, now get back to your chores or we'll starve."

LMFAO! :lol:

 

[Mark Dunder]

It may be true that the regular soldier or peasant may not know or greatly care about the borders of a kingdom, but Kings and nobles care. That's why they build so many forts on the borders that are indistinct, and send out regular patrols along their made up borders. Also, tales from wandering merchants and travelers, let many of the men in the local taverns get a good idea of where the borders lie, even if they never travel outside their little villages themselves.

I grew up out in the bush about 60 airmiles from Anchorage, Alaska. At that time it took around 3 hours to drive to Anchorage from our home at Caswell Creek. For a long time, I thought Anchorage was in a different state. Just for those who may wonder... Yes, Alaska is another country!

 

[Taharqa]

The use of the nation-state is also something that really bugs me about a lot of fantasy worlds, which are supposedly loosely-modeled on the social/political systems of the medieval world. There is essentially a "reading backwards" of modern institutions to earlier historical periods.

The interesting thing is that REH was a student of history and yet he still created a hyborian world with a strong sense of nationalism. I think part of the reason is that many historians in the early 20th century were engaged in ostensible "research"/propaganda to show the nationalistic origins of their peoples - this of course was perfected in Nazi Germany, where it was "discovered" that Germans were the true Aryan nation. It has really only been in the last 50 years or so that historians have fully realized the modern origins of the nation-state.

 

[urdinaran]

The use of the nation-state is also something that really bugs me about a lot of fantasy worlds, which are supposedly loosely-modeled on the social/political systems of the medieval world. There is essentially a "reading backwards" of modern institutions to earlier historical periods.

My point exactly. I'm not a devout medieval historian, but what little I have read suggests the above.

Here is a typical example:

A Nemedian noble decides to marry off his 3rd son. He's not able to marry him to another Nemedian noble family (for whatwever reason), so he settles for the daughter of Brythunian noble, cementing a sort of peace between the two families.

Later on, the father of the Brythunian bride dies, and maybe he doesn't leave a surviving male heir. The Nemedian son claims rights to the Brythunian lands. The problem here would be that as a Nemedian noble, he has already pledged fealty to the king of Nemedia and probably can't also pledge to the king of Brythunia (since there really isn't one). So now, by rights, a portion of Brythunia is part of Nemedia (sort of).

There are many example like this throughout medieval history. Imagine the amount of intermarrying that would happen in the Hyborian countries. And REH's work is not the only one that has the modern idea of countries/states; can you say Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk?

 

[Bregales]

The use of the nation-state is also something that really bugs me about a lot of fantasy worlds, which are supposedly loosely-modeled on the social/political systems of the medieval world. There is essentially a "reading backwards" of modern institutions to earlier historical periods.

My point exactly. I'm not a devout medieval historian, but what little I have read suggests the above.

Here is a typical example:

A Nemedian noble decides to marry off his 3rd son. He's not able to marry him to another Nemedian noble family (for whatwever reason), so he settles for the daughter of Brythunian noble, cementing a sort of peace between the two families.

Later on, the father of the Brythunian bride dies, and maybe he doesn't leave a surviving male heir. The Nemedian son claims rights to the Brythunian lands. The problem here would be that as a Nemedian noble, he has already pledged fealty to the king of Nemedia and probably can't also pledge to the king of Brythunia (since there really isn't one). So now, by rights, a portion of Brythunia is part of Nemedia (sort of).

There are many example like this throughout medieval history. Imagine the amount of intermarrying that would happen in the Hyborian countries. And REH's work is not the only one that has the modern idea of countries/states; can you say Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk?

This is a nice example. In a generalized sense, in the middle ages it was entirely possible to pledge fealty to multiple lords. In the most basic example, you've just been knighted by your lord. You pledge fealty to that lord who (if he's not a duke) pledges fealty to a duke (annually) who pledges fealty to a king (maybe Michaelmas or Yule-tide or Christmastide or on the New Year-usually a religious holiday) who pledges fealty to either a higher king, an emperor (Holy Roman emperor) or Pope, or all of the above. This is the basis of feudalism.

In your example, the son of the Nemedian noble could have fealty to both the Nemedian king and a lord of his wife's lands if there were one. In the case of a conflict between patrons, it is understood that the subject must always reconcile to his LIEGE Lord over any other patrons he has sworn fealty to, unless he renounces his liege lord who in turn renounces him. A knight or other noble of some standing could have over a half-dozen lords he swore fealty to, but only one would be his liege lord (like patron or sponsor if you will, but not necessarily in those modern concepts the same person).

I like the other post by Lastman, freakin' funny :lol:

Anyway, hope this helps.

 

[Mark Dunder]

I'm thinking we might be putting a little to much into the concept that the Hyboria Kingdoms have any real similarity to the feudalism of Europe. In Western Europe, the Holy Roman Empire lasted until the 19th century!

All this info you can read about on Wikipedia, which I suggest should be the first source for anybody. Whenever I read posts such as this one, I always wonder why all these questions have to answered by people who probably got their answers off the web anyway. Go do your homework.

To continue my thought, before I got all righteous, lets not turn Hyboria into a bunch of feudal states. We use the terms King, Baron, and such, because this appeals to us, and we understand this concept better. I think a simpler system of allied territories would work better. As far as I know, Gunderland and the Bossonian Marches are basically allies to Aquilonia. They aren't exactly "ruled" by the Aquilonia. They are allies that accept the direction given by Aquilonia. Nemedia, on the other hand... is a dictatorship.

Anyway, to each his own. My Hyboria is mine, yours is yours, and that's the way it should be.

 

[Castel]

Actually before we came and began to explore Hyboria, it belong to REH, and the way i understood it, he inpired himself in several historical times from stoneage to late middle ages.
Of course we can do of our hyboria what we want, but most of hyborian kingdoms did work in a feudalistic manner, at least thats what i understood from what i´ve read.
Actually gunderland, bossonia and Poitian were treated more like a province than a allied country, but thats my opinion.

In Western Europe, the Holy Roman Empire lasted until the 19th century???? Are you serius?

May I ask where exactly, and with what name, what are you considering to be the "holy roman empire"?

Wikipedia is good source, but not a really reliable one...

 

[Mark Dunder]

I've checked a lot of resources, including history books, and Wikipedia is about the best, but can be lacking in some areas. It is only as good as the people, such as you and me, can make it.

From what I read, the official end of the Holy Roman Empire was August 6, 1806. Although, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, was the beginning of the end for the empire.

REH always claimed to be only a chronologer of the life of Conan, he also had to interpret the Hyborian times in terms we and he, could understand.

Principalities are considered sovereign states, generally ruled by a prince, or sometimes a duke (called Duchies). As far as I can understand, Poitain, Bossonia, and Gunderland are not ruled by any prince or princesses. Poitain, during the Hour of the Dragon, reverted to the rule of their hereditary "count" Trocero, but had not declared separation from Aquilonia. Mostly smaller areas were controlled by Barons. I suppose all these areas could be called Baronies.

I think the author of this thread may have it right. The concept of state may not be well formed during Conan's time. Loyalty to a leader, not in the feudal sense, may have been more important. When I think about it, "nationalism" or at least pride in your culture, may be very strong in the Hyborian times. Your clan or extended family (Gundermen?) may be a source of pride, but you might not see the whole group as a nation. The Celts of Europe, might be an example of this.