The concept of the "State" in fantasy settings

[Damien]

I would disagree that 'nation' is a modern concept.


1.a A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
1.b The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
2. The government of a sovereign state.
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).

4.a A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
4.b The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.



Obviously most of those definitions can be applied to areas during the medieval and ancient periods. The Roman Empire was a nation. Normandy was a nation. Burgundy was a nation. The State of Jerusalem was a nation.

 

[Taharqa]

I would disagree that 'nation' is a modern concept.


1.a A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
1.b The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
2. The government of a sovereign state.
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).

4.a A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
4.b The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.



Obviously most of those definitions can be applied to areas during the medieval and ancient periods. The Roman Empire was a nation. Normandy was a nation. Burgundy was a nation. The State of Jerusalem was a nation.

Let me be more clear. The nation-state is a modern concept - that is a political unit organized around the notion of "cultural belonging" if you will.

The Roman Empire was most definitely not a Nation-state. Outside of Rome itself, most of its subjects did not think of themselves as Romans even if they recognized themselves as subjects of the Roman Empire.

That the Israelites considered themselves a nation/tribe while under the suzerainty of the Romans is in fact a good example of why neither was a nation-state.

The basic point is that the relationship between people's folk identity and how they were politically organized has been fairly loose for most of human history. It is only in the past 500 years that this correlation has tightened to the point that folk identity overlaps almost perfectly with the state.

 

[The King]

The Roman Empire was most definitely not a Nation-state. Outside of Rome itself, most of its subjects did not think of themselves as Romans even if they recognized themselves as subjects of the Roman Empire.

That the Israelites considered themselves a nation/tribe while under the suzerainty of the Romans is in fact a good example of why neither was a nation-state.

Good point.
It shall be noted that the modern representation for the identification to a nation is its flag.
Such thing had no meaning in the ancient time. The only identification items used were for military purpose.

Howard though clearly wrote that the national emblem of Nemedia was the scarlet dragon whereas Aquilonia was represented by a golden lion on an azure field and these are typical middle age concepts.

 

[Mark Dunder]

Hyboria is not the middle ages, nor Roman times, nor anytime for that matter. It is a complete conglomeration of all the ancient times we have any record of. As long as science and technology has not reached the level of the use of cannons and guns, it seems to be good to go for the Hyborian Age.

If you want the concept of "state" to exist or not to exist in Hyboria, it does. Did REH want it that way? Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. Why he had flags flying over the heads of the nations of Aquilonia and Nemedia, is probably just for color and to stimulate our sense of nationalism, so we can identify with these forces. I sure as heck haven't a clue, and none of you have a real clue either, no matter how much you B.S. about it.

All I really want is all of your drawings of the flags of all the nations, detailed maps, some made up words for the different languages in Hyboria (along with representations of their scripts). And while your busy uploading all of these images to your websites (be sure to list the urls for me), don't forget to include drawings of the uniforms. I really like uniforms.

 

[Damien]

Let me be more clear. The nation-state is a modern concept - that is a political unit organized around the notion of "cultural belonging" if you will.

Firstly, I'm not sure I've ever heard the term 'nation-state' before, so I've really no idea what that is supposed to signify.

Also, in concerns to cultural belonging: I'm pretty sure the French were proud to be Frenchmen, and had a distinct culture. Same goes for the English. Even the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem Europeans formed a strange 'state culture' that they seemed proud of. Italy was broken up into warring city-states, each of which seemed to have citizens that were proud to be from it.

So, I'm really not sure what you mean by saying that there was no 'cultural belonging' in the Middle Ages. I may be misunderstanding what you're saying.

Such thing had no meaning in the ancient time. The only identification items used were for military purpose.

That's not really accurate. Burgundy developed their national flag (a type of cross) in order to separate itself, as a nation, from France - another nation symbolized by a different flag.

Clearly flags, of a type, had significance culturally (at least, symbolically, as they do today).

As long as science and technology has not reached the level of the use of cannons and guns, it seems to be good to go for the Hyborian Age.

Not really an accurate way to put it. Firearms existed before the completely encompassing suit of plate. Yet, Howard himself described such suits of armour as existing in his setting. If he were following a -direct- historical model, his setting would absolutely have to have cannon (which existed in the 13th century - long before even transitional plate armour) and hand-gonnes of some kind.

 

[Mark Dunder]

Did I say our science and technology level? I said science and technologey in the Hyborian Age. It seems they used magic too. Now I refuse to believe (UFO's are real) that we had magic in the middle ages. I just can't accept that, I'm a non-believer.

Did you know that cannons way back whenever (those of you who like to date things and stuff can put dates wherever you want here. Go ahead! I won't stop you), shot arrows! Our modern behemoth tanks of today shoot arrows too! Some things never change.

In the Hyborian Age, gunpowder is never invented (those stingy Sygians aren't tell'n either).

What particular state I'm in, I can't say. I think I'm still stuck in that Mafia concept.

 

[Yogah of Yag]

Did you know that cannons way back whenever ...shot arrows!

I think they were called petards or iron-pots...?

 

[Mark Dunder]

As in foisted.

You sure that wasn't "chamber-pots?"

 

[The King]

In the Hyborian Age, gunpowder is never invented (those stingy Sygians aren't tell'n either).

In fact gunpowder is used by hyborian sorcerers to impress the low folks. The sort of powder thrown in a fire to provoke some pyrotechnic effects.
And the master of Yimsha use some exploding balls against the ennemy army.
But there is nothing as near as "iron-ball thrower" triggered by gunpowder.
This however would make for an excellent prototype in an adventure, where, say, a rebell sorcerer intend to use them to destroy the fortress of the king.

 

[Mark Dunder]

I have a magic talent in my game called Alchemy (sounds like and is spelt just like alchemy), where the "Alchemists" (not to be confused with alchemist or alchemy; notice that mine is capitalized) combine magic with ground up dirt (some of this dirt could be mistaken for chemicals) of various colors and consistancy, that go "BOOM" when the right incantations or hand waving (to disguise the match) is done.

 

[Castel]

Well i don´t really get why are we having this discussion.

Yes there was the concept of state, nation, race, culture and so on, in REH civilised Hyboria, he really gave importance to these concepts, and even barbaric cultures made use of them.

Hyboria is a meltingpott full of influances from all times, and many strange things happen in this world (nothing is impossible you know...), actually in middle ages we had magic...
But it worked more focussed in "god" and in the correct biblic cience (the one that didn´t question the bible)

Look, we can do what we want with Hyboria, one may even introduce laser guns in this world if he wants, but that woudn´t be staying true to REH (unless you came up with a really good excuse for the laser guns)

So do as you like but for me, the concept of state is based in the feudalistic model of european kingdoms focussed on the king, for most Hyborian kingdoms, and each other nation had their special model, going from barbaric tribe to republic union of cities.

Fell free to do what you want, but try to stay true to REH world.

 

[Taharqa]

Let me be more clear. The nation-state is a modern concept - that is a political unit organized around the notion of "cultural belonging" if you will.

Firstly, I'm not sure I've ever heard the term 'nation-state' before, so I've really no idea what that is supposed to signify.

The nation-state is a very well established term for describing a modern form of political organization that has its roots in that nationalistic movements of the last three centuries. The Wikipedia has an excellent definition, which basically corroborates everything I have been saying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state
For those who distrust Wikipedia, try Webster:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nation-state
The reason nation-state may seem redundant is that the phenomenon of nation and state are so highly correlated today that it is difficult to imagine otherwise, but in fact political and cultural identity were far more messy for most of human history.

Also, in concerns to cultural belonging: I'm pretty sure the French were proud to be Frenchmen, and had a distinct culture. Same goes for the English.

The problem here is when? Of course the French are Frenchmen today, but that was hardly always the case. You have already pointed out the issue of the Burgundians yourself. Historically, the "French" were Normans, Burgundians, and a host of other groups who happened to owe fealty to a king who claimed to hold together the ancient Frankish empire. And even these groups are just simplifications of a set of much more localized identities and relationships.

 

[Taharqa]

Well i don´t really get why are we having this discussion.

The conversation began because urdanian expressed his frustration with the use of modern notions of states in fantasy settings in general, including to some extent in the Hyborian world.

The reason this is important is that some of us find the treatment of socio-political units in many rpg fantasy settings to be juvenile at best. It is not because fantasy settings have to be historical, but because true history is far more interesting than most of the slop that qualifies as fantasy worlds these days.

In fact, it is the sophistication of REH in many of these areas that has drawn me to his work. As I have already noted, REH was a student of history and his favorite genre was not fantasy writing but historical fiction. I believe his use of nationalistic terms and borders on maps was intended more as placeholders for areas he had not fully detailed in his work. In the geographical areas where Conan spent most of his time, we do see much political complexity. Aquilonia for example clearly has a very fedual structure. The best example of this is the way the kingdom falls apart when the king is believed to be dead. Another good example is from the letter REH wrote to a couple of fans detailing what was meant by the term "Kushite" - to someone from the kingdom of Kush, it indicated a subject of the kingdom, but to Hyborians it was just a general reference to someone from the black kingdoms. An historical parallel is the way the Byzantines referred to all Crusaders from Western Europe as "Franks."

Let's take Corinth as another example. According to REH, Corinth is basically a collection of bickering city-states. So there really is no Corinth in the sense of a unitary state or country. It is doubtful that anyone from these cities would describe themselves as a Corinthian, but they may be described as such by others.

In short it is the messiness of political and cultural identity that can give a richness to any fantasy setting.

 

[Damien]

The nation-state is a very well established term for describing a modern form of political organization that has its roots in that nationalistic movements of the last three centuries. The Wikipedia has an excellent definition, which basically corroborates everything I have been saying:

Got'cha.

Now tell me how this has any relevance to Hyboria. From what I can see, you're the one that brought up nation-states, which is an entirely different concept from just a nation, a state, a county, a country.. etc.

If nation-states didn't exist until the last 3 centuries.. obviously it's a modern conception. That doesn't mean a -nation- is a modern concept. It's clearly not.

I don't see where the argument is. It sounds to me like saying that forks didn't exist in medieval times.. because sporks didn't exist in medieval times.

The problem here is when? Of course the French are Frenchmen today, but that was hardly always the case. You have already pointed out the issue of the Burgundians yourself. Historically, the "French" were Normans, Burgundians, and a host of other groups who happened to owe fealty to a king who claimed to hold together the ancient Frankish empire. And even these groups are just simplifications of a set of much more localized identities and relationships.

Who said anything about Frenchmen today? Note my usage of the word "were" instead of "are."

And there's a flaw in your logic here. The Burgundians were a French people, but distinct in culture and living in their own lands. The Normans are different - being that they were the 'originators' - from the North.

In Hyborian terms... The Normans are the Hyborians that came from the North and settled - becoming Aquilonians, and the Burgundians are like Poitainians.

They're all of relatively the same stock, but all have their own individual cultural identities and nations or states (or counties, etc).


The original issue, from what I can gather, was that the OP didn't think Hyboria (and by default, most fantasy settings) were properly mimicking the cultural and national 'styles' of real medieval history. I disagree. I think they're extremely similar.

The premise that the OP put forth was 'states' and 'countries' did not exist in medieval times. That's bunk. It quite clearly did exist. France was a country. Normandy was a country. Jerusalem was a state.

So let's try to get back to the original point: Did the concept of states and countries exist in real history in a similar way to how they exist in REH's world? Yes, they did. End of discussion.. thanks for playing.

 

[Oly]

The problem here is when? Of course the French are Frenchmen today, but that was hardly always the case. You have already pointed out the issue of the Burgundians yourself. Historically, the "French" were Normans, Burgundians, and a host of other groups who happened to owe fealty to a king who claimed to hold together the ancient Frankish empire. And even these groups are just simplifications of a set of much more localized identities and relationships.

"Cry God for Harry, England and Saint George", wrote Shakespeare in the late 1500s when writing of a King who reigned in the early 1400s.

Then as now England consisted of a mix of local identities, all very distinct and important to those who hold them. I'm a South Londoner, then a Londoner, then a Southerner and then an Englishman. Back then it no doubt would have been the same.

However there was a sense of "England" that clearly existed back then, centuries prior to the Wikipedia defined start of "nation states" in 1850. People had a sense of being different from those in other regions but there was, and is, a core sense of also being a part of something bigger. Something that could be appealed to in a dramatic speech.

No doubt some of REH's nations worked the same way, no doubt some didn't. How a "nation" was perceived by others might also be different form how they perceive themselves, as in the given example of Kush.

Having a sense of oneself as being a part of a bigger national identity predates 1850. People would gather and call "for England!", they would be moved and inspired by that, it meant something. I think that's a sense of being a nation.

 

[Mark Dunder]

The Hyborian Age does seem static to me. I don't know if REH meant for there to be clearly defined borders or that every culture from the Aquilonians to the Zomorans had a clear understanding that they were part of a state or nation. REH's legacy is that he did create a world not so dissimilar to ours and where we could play and have fun without worrying about messing up our own world. He probably would be extremely pleased on how his Hyborian Age has taken on a life of its' own. If it did not have so many realistic themes to it, I don't think we would be having any of these discussions.

I'm immensely glad I joined this forum. In the very short time I've been here, you guys have thoughly humble me many times, but I hope I've made some valuable contributions, as many of you have done for me.

Just remember, a consensus is were everyone agrees not to disagree with the majority, but may not themselves entirely agree with the opinion.

 

[Flashman67]

It has really only been in the last 50 years or so that historians have fully realized the modern origins of the nation-state.

Which is exactly why I give REH and others a break on this; I certainly can't hold him accountable for not having a doctorate in political science when he sat down to create a fantasy world.

I guess my feeling is that when a concept like the nation/state is used anachronistically in a more medieval setting, it helps to remember that real history played out a certain way due to countless factors, and therefore is not the only way it could have played out. An author freely mixing and mashing seemingly incompatible political systems doesn't bother me as long as the story works.

I've read too many books where the world just doesn't seem to work in a believable way. I hope I don't get into too much trouble saying this, but the world of Tolkein's Middle Earth seems far more alien and unworkable and, to me at least, unbelievable in a "real" world sense than Hyboria. I feel I can say that since I'm a huge fan of LOTR, so no disrespect intended.

 

[Mark Dunder]

I've read too many books where the world just doesn't seem to work in a believable way. I hope I don't get into too much trouble saying this, but the world of Tolkein's Middle Earth seems far more alien and unworkable and, to me at least, unbelievable in a "real" world sense than Hyboria. I feel I can say that since I'm a huge fan of LOTR, so no disrespect intended.

Ditto.