I thought this thread was about states and countries - not socio-political models.
Aquilonia is definitely based on the model of the Manorial system - what many laymen will simply call 'Feudalism.' There's simply no question there. Every time any description comes up in Howard's works in concerns to how the government functions for Aquilonia - he is describing a Manorial system of government.
The fact that the common people (that is not an insulting term, by the way, even today leaders refer to citizens as "the common people") liked Conan is wholly irrelevant to what system of government was employed.
'The people' liked Henry V. That did not make him any less the King in a country based on the Manorial system.
A few other points:
1.) The existance, and decline, of Feudalism has nothing to do with matchlock rifles. Theoretically, Feudalism could even exist today. It doesn't, of course, because these days we have the much more potent republics and dictatorships.
2.) The fact that peasants could not own land is often looked at as proof of some intangible 'mistreatment' peasants suffered under such systems. Be clear: No 'commoner' -TODAY- can own land in America, theoretically. If you don't believe that, try putting a swimming pool in your backyard if the county doesn't want you to. Even in modern times we are really only -renting- the land that we live on. The only difference here is that we maintain the right to pass that land on to heirs indefinitely, while a medieval commoner could only do the same if none of his lords challenged his right to do so.
3.) Also, the belief that knights were bullies and commoners were mistreated is a myth. It probably happened about as much as police brutality in the U.S. Sure, it happens - but the fact that it happened once in a great while should not be used as an excuse to sully the reputation of an entire group of people - be they knights or United States police officers.
Knights showed disdain for commoners, by and large. That is true. But many politicians and people of fame even today show disdain for the common people. You think Russel Crowe and Axl Rose view you, dunderm, as their equal? Laughable.
However, disdain does not equate to abuse. Knights and their various lords took great pains to care for their people as best they could. It was a matter of survival. If too many peasants die of malnourishment, or must be killed to quell a revolt or uprising, then fields go untended and there isn't enough food for the upper classes, which means there isn't enough food for the peasants, which means even more peasants die, which means even less food - which means the collapse of the entire country.
Medieval noblemen and men of power were not stupid. You treat the people as well as you can because your livelihood depends on them as much as they depend on you.
The fact that modern Americans and other modern members of 'Democratic Republics' are fooled into thinking that they actually have any say over their government should not be used as a measure of medieval forms of government. That's faulty logic. Just because medieval 'nobles' did not bother to fake the peasantry into thinking they had a say in anything does not mean that peasants were being mistreated. The two things are not related.
Take some forms of 'barbaric' tribal structure for example. Many are led dictatorally by a chieftain or republicly by a council of elders or somesuch. In these forms of 'government' the common people of the tribe don't get a say either. That doesn't mean the chieftain didn't care about his people.
Coming back around - when the people thought Conan was dead they went into disarray. It is more apt to say that they didn't rally to any one leader because they didn't know -who- to rally to, or what was going to happen to them if they made the wrong choice. Combine that with a lot of resentment and anger at losing a great leader, and the probability (if untrue) that one of those supposed 'noblemen' murdered Conan. All that considered, it's no wonder the people didn't simply rally behind a lesser lord.
The same thing has happened in real history, as well as the reverse. On the one hand the death of a leader was actually known to cause militias (and currently-employed mercenaries) to be thrown into confusion as to whom they were to follow. In certain circumstances the militias and mercenaries may feel that their leader was betrayed and thus would not be immediately inclined to follow anyone else until the matter of what happened is resolved.
On the other hand, peasants (militias) pretty consistently fought and died for their leaders. In theory, they could have turned on their leaders, and indeed if the situation had been as dire as dunderm proposed - they probably would have. But they didn't. That is telling in and of itself.
Anywho...
Aquilonia is the quintessential fantasy Feudal/Manorial kingdom. As a matter of fact, if you look over the map of Hyboria you will note that most major political systems, from nomadic tribal governments to solid theocracies, are represented somewhere on the map.
