Here are some corrections made to the video from users on Reddit "Most lords had a manor..." *Show inaccurate picture of manor where label pointing towards a castle says "manor".* The castle in that picture is a manor house... It, the village and the fields are the manor. It wasn't just most lords, but every lord, as owning a manor made you a lord of the manor. "also, there is the need for primogeniture..." Actually no, there is no need for it. Primogeniture emerged as the standard for it's a compromise between what rulers wanted (appointment) and what nobility wanted (elective). "But if you split your all holdings among each kid you get the Holy Roman Empire" *Display map of 15th century Holy Roman Empire* Implying that Holy Roman Emperors partitioned their empire among their sons and kept doing that until 15th century situation arose... While the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire practiced partible inheritance, it itself wasn't the main cause for the fractionation, but imperial immediacy. If any other realm had exercised it, they would have looked the same.
And samurai name applies for Japanese warriors in more than a millennium in time. It evolved and changed over time, so what you said about them doesn't apply to all of them and requires to specify time.
a problem, you treat the idea or imply the idea that "if we just got along things would be fine" which is a gross insight into your views, as when it comes to ideology and ethics, in cases where one can't exist if another is present, it isn't a simple or stupid thing like the color of a house but rather an idea which must consume an entire nation-state to be in effect forcing those who didn't believe shoved to the wayside. nations cause, not all ideas fit into the same space nor should that be attempted unless you want to die a very bad death.
In Loving Memory to all of my unsung fallen Emu heroes and brethren of The Great Emu Wars... May Birds of a Feather, Flock Together Again in The Lush Grass Fields of The Great Beyond... Rest In Peace, y'all... Dilly Dilly... 🎻😔🕯 ,🎻😢🕯 🎻😭🕯
A city-state is a city with established sovereignty. Set borders, set government, etc. it's like how state sovereignty was idealized, but to a city only
There was a small free but non noble class in medieval England called the Yeomanry. The rough rule in pre modern Europe is the further west you go the nicer it is to be a commoner. With England and it’s Yeoman being the nice end and the Russian Serfs being the bad end. There are exceptions but it’s a very general rule.
Also in France peasants were divided into serves and villains, respectively unfree peasants that farm for others and can’t leave the land and free peasants having the right to property.
RIP to my great grandfathers best friend who survived the western front and made it all the way back home only to be ambushed by a mob of emus, you will be remembered. Also just found these videos a while back, they're really great and super helpful. Keep it up man 👍
This is a good lesson in political science. My big question is why most fantasy writers set their stories in monarchies as opposed to democracies like ancient Athens or medieval Iceland...in fact many people who are fans of Norse stuff are seemingly unaware of the fact that Iceland was in fact a democracy throughout much of the Middle Ages...I think that this is one of the coolest things about their society!
With regard to world building... One thing to keep in mind about the "older and more primitive" forms of governance is that they were each better than the one before, and functionally necessary for their day. Modern society uses terms like freedom and individual rights, but these ideas are relatively recent, and only functionally possible during times of plenty. When you're starving or under immediate threat from an invading army, ANYTHING that helps you survive is good and everything else is bad. So, the urge to paint all feudal rulers as evil tyrants that will inevitably be overthrown isn't a reality. In fact, until their is a massive surplus of food and trade goods, such that central control of that surplus isn't necessary for survival, there really isn't the possibility of anything more egalitarian. So, in world building, keep in mind the upsetting impact on anything that suddenly adds a tremendous amount of wealth, especially in the form of food, to a region. That will tend to decentralize power, by diminishing the difference between poor and wealthy, and also remove the need for authority as a hedge against survival. Things that might fit this criteria are... a new type of cultivation that yields a massive increase in crops, a new type of draft animal that allows faster and more effective cultivation, a new type of fishing vessel that catches more fish, a new type of food preservation technology that allows more effective stockpiling, a new (external) trade partner that has a demand for a previously low value commodity which they will trade for food. In each of these cases, the ability of the common people to produce food is increased dramatically, and without the influence of the government. Another consideration in the rise of individual autonomy is necessity. Cities, by necessity, are strictly governed. The farther from these seats of power, and the fewer people nearby, the less influence the government will have. In an extremely rural region, there will be essentially no government, and the people who live there must arm themselves to fill the roles that government normally would. If this self sufficient population grows, and is producing sufficient food that it needs no support, then it will tend to be difficult to rule. The distance from the cities and the armed nature of the people who live there will make the imposition of the city's authority disproportionately costly. From a pure authority point of view, the city should probably just wipe them all out in a single swoop. But that would be very unpopular with all of the other people working the land, and the cycle would repeat itself. More likely, the city would appoint a local ruler, and levy taxes on him, and give him "authority" to collect these taxes, under threat of invasion if he didn't. This is how feudalism gets started, and how a city authority keeps reign on local leaders. By turning the strongest local leader into a tax collector, the city creates division in their adversary, and convinces them to resent each other rather than the city.
"Don't be the Holy Roman Empire" - Most Worlds I've made have had an HRE like thing. - Nervously looking around as this is type of thing has come up in like every world I've made. And there are a good 14 of them.
Having an HRE is actually better than having a region that just calls itself an empire. It's important to know that being an Empire had serious religious implications during the Middle Ages (hence why there were only a few self-declared empires).
It's a pretty good summary of the terms (you missed "chiefdom," BTW), however there wasn't a lot here about how it relates to worldbuilders. Something like "an empire tends to happen when a kingdom has enough military strength to conquer lands with existing distinct cultures;" "states (as opposed to tribes or chiefdoms) generally require writing or at least a dedicated bureaucracy, so they tend to spring up only when there's a foundation of specialization and population density," etc. Still, it's a good start, and I hope the second part will be more applicable to worldbuilding.
As with all things, 'History is weird', and there are many cases of empires which had not been formed with distinct cultures (from the Empire of Trebizond to the Japanese Empire). It also doesn't really help that many kingdoms fell under the basic description of an empire but were never known as such (France, Spain, The Netherlands).
@@Ariaelyne empire of trebizond because it was a successor to the roman empire, empire of Japan because it wanted to be viewed as equivalent to China, which was given the title of empire by europeans only due to its roman-like influence/domination of the east. The empires of France, Spain and Netherlands essentially denoted the dominion over multiple distinct cultures (in their case with colonies) with the very modern usage of empire. And the napoleonic french empire was named as such as it was in theory meant to get rid of feudalism and bring back the meritocratic institutions of Rome. In theory
@@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901 Historically the word 'Empire' just meant a polity where the head of state is called an Emperor. Whether or not the polity is multiethnic isn't really relevant to the classic definition. The multiethnic definition is more of a modern historiographic term and would be a bit anachronistic to use this definition on historical empires and large scale polities.
In Loving Memory to all of my unsung fallen Emu heroes and brethren of The Great Emu Wars... May Birds of a Feather, Flock Together Again in The Lush Green Fields of The Great Beyond... Rest In Peace, y'all... Dilly Dilly... 🎻😔🕯 ,🎻😢🕯 🎻😭🕯
For anyone wondering because I didn't know this until recently, from lowest to highest, feudal rankings are Baron(ess): in charge of a barony (a farely small bit of land, like a few towns and/or villages or just a large town) Viscount: Below count like a vice president (Vice count) Count(ess)/Earl: In charge of a county (several baronies) Marquis: Technically a count/earl, just on a border county (a "march") so more important Duke/Duchess: In charge of a duchy (several counties) King/Queen: in charge of a Kingdom (several Duchies) Note: Earl is just the English way of saying count, there is no functional difference, they're interchangeable
This is not completely correct though. A duke is not necessarily someone who rules over counts and many counts were as powerful as dukes were. Case in point: County of Flanders and Duchy of Burgundy were both Peers of France. Edit: Expanding on Burgundy: The Dukes of Burgundy were at one point more powerful and influential than the Kings of France, prime example of why the feudal pyramid is a faulty representation of the situation at hand.
@@cd180 Yeah, it's better to view the 'Feudal pyramid' as more of a ranking of precedence, not necessarily of power. The King of France was more of a 'first among "equals"' (and I use equals very loosely) than the supreme holder of power.
You left out burghers, clergymen and skilled craftsmen of various varieties from your "medieval classes" chart. They were arguably in a higher position than the common peasants or serfs. Also rich free peasants were arguably in a higher position than serfs or ordinary farm labourers. And separating knights and nobles seems kind of arbitrary. Knights were the lowest form of nobility but there were many other levels of nobility so why include only knights as a separate category? As an example, when Sweden formed it's earliest Parliament it was supposed to include representatives from all property holding classes of society. It included four groups: free peasants, burghers (property owning craftsmen and city dwellers), clergymen and nobles. Arguably there would have been at least one more class below these people composed of serfs, poor farmers, farmhands/labourers, servants and other people too poor to qualify.
Really good video. Two things: 1) Absolutism is a mostly post-medieval innovation. Premodern monarchies varied considerably but none can properly be described as absolutist during the middle ages in regions now known as Europe and the Middle East. Local custom heavily restricted what they could do - notably, without a constitution. Before Church and State by Andrew Willard Jones is a great analysis of this reality in medieval France. 2) similarly. Divine right, to the extent it is used from antiquity, is also different from the popular misconception. The cartoonish view is again a fiction instituted by early modern monarchs. The actual use of it in the middle ages is significantly closer to the Chinese Mandate of Heaven than it is to the later rearticulation in Europe.
I would not say Primogeniture is a flaw to be honest. It is, in my view, the best way to handle succession. It prevents gravelkind were each holding is spilt up equally between the sons (or daugthers if there are no sons). Some say it creates rivalry between siblings but I would say it creates less rivalry than if you were to appoint one or spilt them equally. Also, having the Nobles choose the heir could be really bad because they might choose someone who is weak and would need to rely heavily on those Nobles and would be in debt to those Nobles. You would need to educate the firstborn properly and see to it that he gets along with his brothers. You'd also need to see to it that the other sons get some education so that if the firstborn died, his brother could rule with some knowledge
Reminds me of CK2. I fight to get Primogeniture or Ultimogenature because Gavelkind screws you over in terms of land and elective can be bribed... looking at you Habsburg.
The more proper term is partible inheritance. Gavelkind refers to a specific kind of practice of partible inheritance used among the Celtic people of Britain and Ireland.
Basicly the Holy Roman Empire of German Nationality (as it is called by its full name) is an empire not by the definition of an empire that is present in English, but by translating the words Imperium (lat) or Reich (ger) into English. Both are meant to mean: Vast dominion. Why holy? Why Roman? Well it was a thing back than to 'legitimise' your title by claiming that it came from God (>holy). And part of that was claiming that you were in a line of people that held that right. Since Germanic tribes destroyed the Roman Empire, German rulers centuries later took up the title of Roman Emperor themselves (even if they didn't rule over Rome - it's just the title). Just as Napoleon crowned himself emperor and dismantled the Holy Roman empire - and just as the Prussian kings took to calling themselves emperors after defeating France again. Those titles tend to show up again and again in history.
The HRE is aesthetic Dynastic bordergore with a mishmash of feudal lords and titles under an elective* monarchy with less power than the lords it oversees is just an interesting concept, and allows for more internal political maneuvers by foreign lords (whereas ducal France was mostly French houses with territories abroad, and feudal Japan was entirely isolated from Korean or Chinese dynasties).
I really do love the humor in all these videos. I've said it before and I'll say it again; memes and jokes really do help keep the viewers attention, and makes the information more memorable and easier to recall. I love these videos, and I think the formatting is both clever and hilarious
I’ve just discovered your channel and liked it very much. Could you do a video about rituals and magic? I don’t mean a magic system, but explaining how different societies develop different religions and how that would be different in a fantasy world where the religious beliefs are known to be real
Well, the thing is, just because the gods are actually real doesn't mean that everyone knows that. Remember, assuming your average joe does not have any formal education he has no means of distinguishing between genuine magic and technology. He could very easily believe that all priests are just tricking people. Or he might believe that his god is real, but other gods aren't. Or he might believe that all manner of completely mundane items are magical. Those with formal education would know the difference between genuine magic and technology. But, if not all magic in the setting is divine they could very well believe that the gods aren't real. Or that only certain gods are real. They could even believe in gods that don't actually exist. If the setting contains immensely powerful beings who influenced humanoid civilization, they might very well be seen as gods even if they technically aren't. The only way that people would know beyond any reasonable doubt that the gods exist, is if they have some way to interact with divine beings. In most settings, that's still something only priests or other clerics of the church would experience. A priest knows beyond any doubt that his god is real, and has good reason not to doubt a fellow priest's conviction (though, it should be pointed out that he still might). But, I do have to point out here: this is also generally speaking true in the real world too. You do not become a priest if you don't think that your god is real. I would have thought that was obvious even to an atheist. If people who aren't priests or clerics are interacting with the divine directly in a fantasy world, there's gotta be a good reason. Why would gods in this setting get involved in politics, economics or social issues? What merits a god sending a divine servant, versus a priest? if gods still mainly work through priests, rather than divine servants, then there's no reason for religion to be different from how it is in the real world.
The word you’re looking for to refer to the smallest, most basal form of human social organization changes depends on what field of study you talk to. Archaeology calls it “band” society, defined as groups of people who live, work, and often move together, with relatively equal distribution of resources and in most cases a situation specific form of leadership combined with general consensus as a form of making decisions (i.e. we all want to go hunting, let’s pick the guy who’s best at hunting to lead us, and then when we want to go gathering, we pick the gal who’s best at gathering to be leader). Such groups usually number around 25, and are typically pre-agrarian. That’s just in the field of archaeology though. Anthropology uses a different system. So does history. And i have no idea beyond that.
Whether or not the HRE can be considered a true empire depends a bit on the time period you're looking at though. Arguably when it first claimed that title the title was a lot more appropriate than it was towards the end of its lifespan.
It's nice to see a treatment of non-state societies (tribes) in fantasy worldbuilding. I'll mention that for most of human history, people lived in bands, which were smaller than most of the tribal societies seen later, after the advent of agriculture (think of tribal cultures in Africa, in the Americas, and for that matter in Europe before the Romans). I've covered some of these subjects here: medium.com/@Michael_Schultheiss/stone-age-to-star-age-world-building-societies-in-fiction-44bd259edaba
head seat of a monarchy was defined as the eldest son of the previous ruler, or daughter in lieu of one comes from the idea that kings pass their power onto who they want. In almost every large culture at the time of kingdoms in Europe, Asia and Africa, the daughters join the family of their husbands and the sons stayed in the family, which was denoted by their surname, which meant the name given from those that you are descended from, which was taken by the wife, as in marriage two souls become one, essentially meaning that the wife and husband are the same collective person and thus share ancestors in their families surname tree. To help preserve your surname, which could have importance religiously or through your ancient ancestors, the king chose to give his land and power to his most mature son as his younger son may be less experienced/ ready and in marriage his daughter would lose the family name giving power to a different family instead, meaning that corruption and ill seen values would become more common. Furthermore, the surname gives you respect i.e Tudor which evoked images of stuffing the french and was used to describe the current better period that you lived in, which is why the Henry's and Liz the first were politically respected and liked widely. The problem came when Elizabeth chose not to marry to keep the name and to 'marry England' in her words which showed that she was a true monarch but as she could not produce a Tudor heir, the Tudor monarchy ended, handing power to their closest related family and partially because they were not 'Tudors' sparked a revolution, leading to a broadly German monarch, not a problem inherently, but we know that the royal family is now slightly less British and has led to an overall loss of centralised power in the royal family. European powers colonised to expand knowledge, improve trade and grow influence all on the aim to make the world richer and promote industrialism and then modernism and automation, having power over places that could produce things not possible to produce in any other climate meant that there was free trade and you had control over taxing and governing the areas. The people became protected citizens of the respective empires and were employed and treated the same as the lower working class would at the capital of the empire. Tribal civilisations that existed in these areas however used slavery, a concept that was never explored outside of places like Italy where the Romans lived centuries ago. European settlers became migrants to Africa, who used their families backgrounds as European as a source of power as Europeans slowly started becoming the dominant global powers in these areas. Then with the advent of the concept of industrialise slavery, many slaves in these colonial places started being treated as slaves by the colonial powers but because the power of one slave is more important to a chief of a tribe than a global power, they were more neglected in the same sense as property was. Along with the colonisation of the new world, some of these slaves were sent over there, either by the African slave owning merchants or the newly colonial settlers that were slave owners. As the american settlers found fertile untapped lands the demand became so high for labour that unlawful and criminal traders would unbeknown to the colonial powers or to the settlers kidnap tribesmen who were not slaves but just citizens of tribes that couldn't say 'i'm not a slave' because they spoke a different language. we all know how the story goes from here, these slave traders becoming more blatant and well know that they were kidnapping innocent non slave Africans to the point that the American settlers and the colonial powers knew that this kept happening but didn't care enough for individuals that it wasn't stopped. But this was almost 300 years ago and although this was wrong, Even the most advanced civilisations were not smart or intellectually evolved enough to really have been given this level of power, but in the next 100 to 150 years we would see slavery become abolished in the Americas and a crack down on slave trade by colonial empires, more accurately depicting how we act and think now as any ideas that we hold as true now are broadly learnt from the mistakes and innovations of the past as although no-one alive then is alive now, we inherit the world from them and they are our models of how to utilise it. Ultimately, these examples of people from the last millennium and how they acted and thought were correct and righteous for good reason at the time even if now we know better, today we deliberately leave tribes alone, not providing our knowledge of stuff we learnt from being in their situation with them out of respect for their culture, so i dont see how we cant just accept that the past was different and that they didnt know what we do now and we just let ourselves keep on learning because people in a couple hundred years will look at us in this same light as stupid and evil, even though i can confidently say that most people are just trying to be correct and good and live their best life, not intentionally being corrupt or evil, much like people of the past, and probably the people of the future too. Overall i just dont like it when people bring up these things to say how bad and tyrannical the world was when really everything has had many millions of lifetimes of thought put into it at the time and it just made the most sense to live like that as it helped guarantee that your life and the lives of your children would be the most secure and good and with knowledge that it would all improve over time because really, our lives now are only good because these people got on with it and held up their end and that our lives are really proof that they were right because if they were not then we'd still be living in the middle ages, the same way the the stone age, bronze age and the iron age were all so slow and never changed but we can see that innovation only accelerates in our new modern age because people before us created that mentality and sparked it, everything that was really bad then was learnt from, improved or removed so that our today is not the same as theirs. personally i thank them, for their strengths, and their weakness.
People give the HRE/Habsburg Empire a hard time. But in fairness to it it was incredibly adaptable and flexible and in one form or another managed to exist for around about a 1000 years. At one point it controlled most of continental Western Europe and big chunks of Latin America, parts of Africa too. Like I think maybe DO be the HRE...
For anyone who thinks the Emus "won", look at what Wikipedia had to say. "the bounty system that had been instigated in 1923 was continued, and this proved to be effective: 57,034 bounties were claimed over a six-month period in 1934".
It would be wrong to assume all peasants were serfs. "Peasant" simply means anyone who works the land themselves. There is a substantial difference between a serf, who doesn't own the land they work and a yeoman who does. Though both could be described as a peasant, and might live in similarly terrible conditions, a serf does not own the means of production while a yeoman does. A yeoman also votes in local elections (such as for city mayor, alderman, etc) while a serf does not. Though I'm using the English term "yeoman" these people existed in other nations as well: particularly France. While all the native Gallic people were serfs, the lower class Franks were in fact free to choose their allegiance: until about the 1300s when intermarriage had erased nearly all distinction between Gaul and Frank. By that time, the medieval period was almost over though. As you go farther east: serfdom becomes more common. Likewise as you go farther forward in time. But this represents the feudal system breaking down, rather than the way it was supposed to work. From the 5th Century AD, to the 10th Century most people in Western Europe actually were free (as in, had freedom of movement). Not that life didn't suck, but life sucks a lot less when you have the option to avoid bullies by moving. 11:07 or Holy, or Roman. And the entire point of it's existence was to dunk on the Byzantines.
Many lords had more than one manor. Also the serfs can further be divided to slaves, cottagers, virgaters (people that own a couple acres of land, usually enough to feed themselves), villeins, and freedmen. Often serfs -could- leave the manor, but just needed either a holiday, permission, or to pay a fee.
Great vid, although I think the explanation of feudalism you made could be improved. First of all, the king isn't really on a separate strata since he is "primus inter pares" the first among equals. Also, in that sense, I wouldn't really make a distinction between knights and nobles since it's a bit redundant. As for european feudalism, I think the tripartite separation of nobility-clergy-commoners applies better than king->nobles->knights->commoners.
When it comes to class system, isn't it divided into farmer/worker, citizen/merchant, priest, nobility. But perhaps that depends on country of origin, or language difference.
Erica T well all classes were heavily subdivided so you had slaves serfs free farmers and merchants, artisans and fisherman. There were about a dozen of Titels a noble or knight could hold and then there was the church
Disagree!! Disagree!! Memes and jokes really do keep my attention and help me retain the information. Makes it memorable and defined, a specific reference to an information source. I thought it was clever and hilarious
gonna have to disagree on the entire primogeniture thing, there has been a ton of different succession laws throughout history and having primogeniture as a requirement for being a kingdom is silly. and the holy roman empire didn't split up because of gavelkind, that's a dumb meme that people keep falling for
The gavelkind meme needs to die, a lot of the gavelkind practicing dynasties ended up being unified ultimately, like the Bavarian Wittelsbach, part of the Saxon Wettins, Austrian Hapsburgs, Pommeranian Welfs(even if they were annexed) and some others.
The concept of a familial tribe I would call kindredism, though that is just my opinion: for it is not a real word. A power ruling only those of a homogeneous culture is not considered an empire, because an empire is a sovereign ruling over multiple, and therefore foreign, cultures and ethnicities. A local, homogeneous empire is simply called a local power. A kingdom is defined as a country with one or more rulers with substantial power and life-long office. A kingdom can have more than one, as in the Spartan diarchy. Although not yet considered one realm, the ancient kindoms of England (Northumbria, East Anglia, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex) is often called the English heptarchy. A nation-state is considered a sovereign nation in which the citizens consider themselves of their nation and often incorporate it into their identity. There was a difference between serfs ans peasants. While serfs were technically not slaves, they were subjects of their manor's lord. Peasants on the other hand were free and independent, but very quite poor. They had no lord and lived in towns and cities. Also, what you said about interstate treaties... I would call it international.
>A power ruling only those of a homogeneous culture is not considered an empire, because an empire is a sovereign ruling over multiple, and therefore foreign, cultures and ethnicities. A local, homogeneous empire is simply called a local power. So the Byzantine empire Japanese empire, German empire are not empires? That definition makes no sense. >Peasants on the other hand were free and independent, but very quite poor. They had no lord and lived in towns and cities. Peasants did not live in towns and cities, there are words for people living in urban areas specifically.
actualy an empire is a construct that in which one group rules over other groups that can be differentiated by culture ,and or ethnic heritage, for example the holy roman empire in which predominantly germans ruled over 1. other german tribes, and 2. over italians, and slavs(bohemia)
5:12 just by looking at all the colonial architecture of hispanoamerica and comparing it to the buildings in Spain in the same period we can know than most of that resources stayed there due to the impossibility of Spain to take all of those resources to the peninsula.
In Kings and emperors: the german word for emperor should be "Kaiser", however in the middle ages the rulers of the german empire could not call themselves " Kaiser" without being coronated by the Pope. So the destinction between king and emperor is not solely based in the country they govern.
Thanks for doing my very weirdly specific hobby and passion as an entire channel and making me binge watch it all Fuck you though for having like, less videos than Australia has had Prime Ministers in the last 20 years, because hot damn this is good content and boy do i need more.
"Kingdom is a word that worldbuilders and writers love to use without much thought" I mean you literally just used empire in such a vague way, it all lies in the false assumption that you can translate the meaning of emperor to other cultures, political systems, languages etc. which is faulty to begin with. The meaning of being an empire was for the entirery of history mostly pagan or christian based, simply because other cultures and religious group used different titles for different reasons. Conflating actual formal empires with the descriptive ahistorical usage is really a problem because the characteristics you give to empires aren't actually going to appear in many of the states we call empires.
Before I even watched this video, the way he defined an empire is the way i would define a modern empire. Empire used to be a word to describe Rome and people who claim to be their successor. but as no one is truly a successor to Rome the best use of the word would be, any country that is multicultural is an empire rather than a Nation. Its why a place like the US can remain a nation while something like Austria-hungary is an empire. Also I would only ever use the term "kingdom" for monarchies, or as a descriptor to get a scope of its size.
The problem is more that you can call anything anything for any reason, and that's just a thing that you've done. Understanding empire is as simple as understanding the title "king of kings." An empire is a state of states, as a lesser state is a state of people. The USA could very easily be called an empire, even within it's own borders, never mind it's territories, or it's hegemonic influence. If anything really differentiates it, you might argue it's the lack of absolute rule of the government over it's members, but then you have to get into weird questions like whether a federation is an empire. Ultimately, the terms are arbitrary and abstract. Trying to reconcile different definitions will only lead to confusion, so you really ought only find an accurate set of terms by which to reason about it.
Hello, youtube served this video up to me randomly. Just wanted to say great job. I've subscribed. I would like to ask you about the picture of the city at 3:29. I'm not familiar with the art. Is this a historical or fantasy city? Again, great video and thanks!
Hold on, not even 30 seconds in and I already have to say something. This very obvious idea over what tribalism is, is wrong. It's in-group preference, out-group differentiation. It's NOT hatred or dislike of other tribes, though it can certainly become those.
People naturally tend to trust people they know and distrust people they don't know. In ancient times, a tribe should view every incoming group of people as potential enemies. Of course when it becomes active hate of other people's and justification for aggression or invasion it is more questionable
An empire is when distict groups of people (nations) are all ruled over by one, in an asymmetrical relationship. Brain for breakfast, paraphrased (very little) What the gulf part 1 nation building.
3:10 MOre importantly the soldiers often serve out of their own free will which does handicap them because they can't use them as effectively. They need to keep in the good graces of their soldiers.
As an Australian, I am deeply wounded by the fact that we never studied the Emu War in school, and I never even heard of such a hilarious military failure until years after graduating.
I think your localism is actually called cthonianism. It just means that the people are governed by traditions dating back to time immemorial which are passed down by word of mouth.
Pyramid at 9:00: Cringe* Where are the artisans, where are the clergy, traders, and money lenders? Where are the skilled craftsmen? You realize that the knights were an extension of the nobility right? As in only the nobility could afford to be knights? Kings were also an extension of the nobility. Who was the greater protector than the king? This chart, and the following speech, genuinely makes me cringe in pain
Completely agreed. The feudal pyramid is a faulty visualisation of the various complex legal and personal bonds between the estates, vassals, merchant classes and everything inbetween.
![On Worldbuilding - Island Civilisations! [ GoT | Japan | Ghibli ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pTYpjsGcKgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![BETA SQUAD vs AMP FOOTBALL MATCH [OFFICIAL STREAM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ChEmvP52p0U/mqdefault.jpg)
Here are some corrections made to the video from users on Reddit
"Most lords had a manor..."
*Show inaccurate picture of manor where label pointing towards a castle says "manor".*
The castle in that picture is a manor house... It, the village and the fields are the manor.
It wasn't just most lords, but every lord, as owning a manor made you a lord of the manor.
"also, there is the need for primogeniture..."
Actually no, there is no need for it. Primogeniture emerged as the standard for it's a compromise between what rulers wanted (appointment) and what nobility wanted (elective).
"But if you split your all holdings among each kid you get the Holy Roman Empire"
*Display map of 15th century Holy Roman Empire*
Implying that Holy Roman Emperors partitioned their empire among their sons and kept doing that until 15th century situation arose... While the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire practiced partible inheritance, it itself wasn't the main cause for the fractionation, but imperial immediacy. If any other realm had exercised it, they would have looked the same.
Also that the British Empire was one of the first major European powers to outlaw slavery
I thought you were making those mistakes on purpose for humor! :p
And samurai name applies for Japanese warriors in more than a millennium in time. It evolved and changed over time, so what you said about them doesn't apply to all of them and requires to specify time.
a problem, you treat the idea or imply the idea that "if we just got along things would be fine" which is a gross insight into your views, as when it comes to ideology and ethics, in cases where one can't exist if another is present, it isn't a simple or stupid thing like the color of a house but rather an idea which must consume an entire nation-state to be in effect forcing those who didn't believe shoved to the wayside. nations cause, not all ideas fit into the same space nor should that be attempted unless you want to die a very bad death.
Eem-you not ee-moo.
Today I learned the horrors of the great Emu War ='[
I know you ;)
Pen & Blade RIP all the Emus nuked in the third Emu war
The real reason why Empires don't happen is Australia is because it doesn't exist ;)
In Loving Memory to all of my unsung fallen Emu heroes and brethren of The Great Emu Wars...
May Birds of a Feather, Flock Together Again in The Lush Grass Fields of The Great Beyond...
Rest In Peace, y'all... Dilly Dilly...
🎻😔🕯 ,🎻😢🕯 🎻😭🕯
@@silentwitness5957
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And auld lang syne...
As an Australian, I can confirm the Emu Empire is real.
*whispers* please send help, the kangaroos were our last hope...
Pray to the lords they won't team up, keep them away each other
Were.
Thanks for the tip off, Sending Emu team 6 your way
If the kangaroos hadn't betrayed the Australian people, the emu menace wouldn't be gone today
“The State”
*puts picture of Louis XIV*
Well played
A city-state is a city with established sovereignty. Set borders, set government, etc. it's like how state sovereignty was idealized, but to a city only
Y r u everywhere
Hey nice a fellow capitalist.
There was a small free but non noble class in medieval England called the Yeomanry. The rough rule in pre modern Europe is the further west you go the nicer it is to be a commoner. With England and it’s Yeoman being the nice end and the Russian Serfs being the bad end. There are exceptions but it’s a very general rule.
The further west and north.
and in the late middle ages/renaissance you had the working nobility or academic class
Also in France peasants were divided into serves and villains, respectively unfree peasants that farm for others and can’t leave the land and free peasants having the right to property.
Another person with a political compass pic
Spain is a pretty big exception
"What's a kingdom?"
"A dominion led by king."
RIP to my great grandfathers best friend who survived the western front and made it all the way back home only to be ambushed by a mob of emus, you will be remembered.
Also just found these videos a while back, they're really great and super helpful. Keep it up man 👍
The horrors of the Great Emu War are unspeakable.
We still have to pay tribute to our Emu oppressors in gizzard stones.
This is a good lesson in political science. My big question is why most fantasy writers set their stories in monarchies as opposed to democracies like ancient Athens or medieval Iceland...in fact many people who are fans of Norse stuff are seemingly unaware of the fact that Iceland was in fact a democracy throughout much of the Middle Ages...I think that this is one of the coolest things about their society!
I think the word you're looking for is "communitarian".
Maybe even Parochialism?
Probably meant communialism
With regard to world building...
One thing to keep in mind about the "older and more primitive" forms of governance is that they were each better than the one before, and functionally necessary for their day. Modern society uses terms like freedom and individual rights, but these ideas are relatively recent, and only functionally possible during times of plenty. When you're starving or under immediate threat from an invading army, ANYTHING that helps you survive is good and everything else is bad.
So, the urge to paint all feudal rulers as evil tyrants that will inevitably be overthrown isn't a reality. In fact, until their is a massive surplus of food and trade goods, such that central control of that surplus isn't necessary for survival, there really isn't the possibility of anything more egalitarian.
So, in world building, keep in mind the upsetting impact on anything that suddenly adds a tremendous amount of wealth, especially in the form of food, to a region. That will tend to decentralize power, by diminishing the difference between poor and wealthy, and also remove the need for authority as a hedge against survival. Things that might fit this criteria are... a new type of cultivation that yields a massive increase in crops, a new type of draft animal that allows faster and more effective cultivation, a new type of fishing vessel that catches more fish, a new type of food preservation technology that allows more effective stockpiling, a new (external) trade partner that has a demand for a previously low value commodity which they will trade for food. In each of these cases, the ability of the common people to produce food is increased dramatically, and without the influence of the government.
Another consideration in the rise of individual autonomy is necessity. Cities, by necessity, are strictly governed. The farther from these seats of power, and the fewer people nearby, the less influence the government will have. In an extremely rural region, there will be essentially no government, and the people who live there must arm themselves to fill the roles that government normally would. If this self sufficient population grows, and is producing sufficient food that it needs no support, then it will tend to be difficult to rule. The distance from the cities and the armed nature of the people who live there will make the imposition of the city's authority disproportionately costly. From a pure authority point of view, the city should probably just wipe them all out in a single swoop. But that would be very unpopular with all of the other people working the land, and the cycle would repeat itself. More likely, the city would appoint a local ruler, and levy taxes on him, and give him "authority" to collect these taxes, under threat of invasion if he didn't. This is how feudalism gets started, and how a city authority keeps reign on local leaders. By turning the strongest local leader into a tax collector, the city creates division in their adversary, and convinces them to resent each other rather than the city.
"Don't be the Holy Roman Empire"
- Most Worlds I've made have had an HRE like thing.
- Nervously looking around as this is type of thing has come up in like every world I've made. And there are a good 14 of them.
I've got like 2 HRE places in one world. HRE is fun.
Having an HRE is actually better than having a region that just calls itself an empire.
It's important to know that being an Empire had serious religious implications during the Middle Ages (hence why there were only a few self-declared empires).
It's a pretty good summary of the terms (you missed "chiefdom," BTW), however there wasn't a lot here about how it relates to worldbuilders. Something like "an empire tends to happen when a kingdom has enough military strength to conquer lands with existing distinct cultures;" "states (as opposed to tribes or chiefdoms) generally require writing or at least a dedicated bureaucracy, so they tend to spring up only when there's a foundation of specialization and population density," etc.
Still, it's a good start, and I hope the second part will be more applicable to worldbuilding.
As with all things, 'History is weird', and there are many cases of empires which had not been formed with distinct cultures (from the Empire of Trebizond to the Japanese Empire). It also doesn't really help that many kingdoms fell under the basic description of an empire but were never known as such (France, Spain, The Netherlands).
@@Ariaelyne empire of trebizond because it was a successor to the roman empire, empire of Japan because it wanted to be viewed as equivalent to China, which was given the title of empire by europeans only due to its roman-like influence/domination of the east.
The empires of France, Spain and Netherlands essentially denoted the dominion over multiple distinct cultures (in their case with colonies) with the very modern usage of empire.
And the napoleonic french empire was named as such as it was in theory meant to get rid of feudalism and bring back the meritocratic institutions of Rome. In theory
So it's not so much history it's more that we've mangled the word
@@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901 Historically the word 'Empire' just meant a polity where the head of state is called an Emperor. Whether or not the polity is multiethnic isn't really relevant to the classic definition. The multiethnic definition is more of a modern historiographic term and would be a bit anachronistic to use this definition on historical empires and large scale polities.
@@minutemansam1214 historically, the empires from which we get the word empire didn't call their rulers emperors.
Emu war has earned you a follower
2:07 My entire childhood just re emerged from the depths of my memories
what was the name of that game?
Same lol territory wars
I KNOW!!!
I KNOW!!!
In Loving Memory to all of my unsung fallen Emu heroes and brethren of The Great Emu Wars...
May Birds of a Feather, Flock Together Again in The Lush Green Fields of The Great Beyond...
Rest In Peace, y'all... Dilly Dilly...
🎻😔🕯 ,🎻😢🕯 🎻😭🕯
For anyone wondering because I didn't know this until recently, from lowest to highest, feudal rankings are
Baron(ess): in charge of a barony (a farely small bit of land, like a few towns and/or villages or just a large town)
Viscount: Below count like a vice president (Vice count)
Count(ess)/Earl: In charge of a county (several baronies)
Marquis: Technically a count/earl, just on a border county (a "march") so more important
Duke/Duchess: In charge of a duchy (several counties)
King/Queen: in charge of a Kingdom (several Duchies)
Note: Earl is just the English way of saying count, there is no functional difference, they're interchangeable
This is not completely correct though. A duke is not necessarily someone who rules over counts and many counts were as powerful as dukes were.
Case in point: County of Flanders and Duchy of Burgundy were both Peers of France.
Edit:
Expanding on Burgundy: The Dukes of Burgundy were at one point more powerful and influential than the Kings of France, prime example of why the feudal pyramid is a faulty representation of the situation at hand.
@@cd180 Yeah, it's better to view the 'Feudal pyramid' as more of a ranking of precedence, not necessarily of power. The King of France was more of a 'first among "equals"' (and I use equals very loosely) than the supreme holder of power.
You left out burghers, clergymen and skilled craftsmen of various varieties from your "medieval classes" chart.
They were arguably in a higher position than the common peasants or serfs. Also rich free peasants were arguably in a higher position than serfs or ordinary farm labourers.
And separating knights and nobles seems kind of arbitrary. Knights were the lowest form of nobility but there were many other levels of nobility so why include only knights as a separate category?
As an example, when Sweden formed it's earliest Parliament it was supposed to include representatives from all property holding classes of society. It included four groups: free peasants, burghers (property owning craftsmen and city dwellers), clergymen and nobles. Arguably there would have been at least one more class below these people composed of serfs, poor farmers, farmhands/labourers, servants and other people too poor to qualify.
The medieval guilds and banking/trading houses were very much into labor specialization and long distance trade.
Really good video. Two things:
1) Absolutism is a mostly post-medieval innovation. Premodern monarchies varied considerably but none can properly be described as absolutist during the middle ages in regions now known as Europe and the Middle East. Local custom heavily restricted what they could do - notably, without a constitution. Before Church and State by Andrew Willard Jones is a great analysis of this reality in medieval France.
2) similarly. Divine right, to the extent it is used from antiquity, is also different from the popular misconception. The cartoonish view is again a fiction instituted by early modern monarchs. The actual use of it in the middle ages is significantly closer to the Chinese Mandate of Heaven than it is to the later rearticulation in Europe.
I would not say Primogeniture is a flaw to be honest. It is, in my view, the best way to handle succession.
It prevents gravelkind were each holding is spilt up equally between the sons (or daugthers if there are no sons). Some say it creates rivalry between siblings but I would say it creates less rivalry than if you were to appoint one or spilt them equally.
Also, having the Nobles choose the heir could be really bad because they might choose someone who is weak and would need to rely heavily on those Nobles and would be in debt to those Nobles.
You would need to educate the firstborn properly and see to it that he gets along with his brothers. You'd also need to see to it that the other sons get some education so that if the firstborn died, his brother could rule with some knowledge
Reminds me of CK2. I fight to get Primogeniture or Ultimogenature because Gavelkind screws you over in terms of land and elective can be bribed... looking at you Habsburg.
The more proper term is partible inheritance. Gavelkind refers to a specific kind of practice of partible inheritance used among the Celtic people of Britain and Ireland.
Basicly the Holy Roman Empire of German Nationality (as it is called by its full name) is an empire not by the definition of an empire that is present in English, but by translating the words Imperium (lat) or Reich (ger) into English. Both are meant to mean: Vast dominion.
Why holy? Why Roman?
Well it was a thing back than to 'legitimise' your title by claiming that it came from God (>holy). And part of that was claiming that you were in a line of people that held that right. Since Germanic tribes destroyed the Roman Empire, German rulers centuries later took up the title of Roman Emperor themselves (even if they didn't rule over Rome - it's just the title). Just as Napoleon crowned himself emperor and dismantled the Holy Roman empire - and just as the Prussian kings took to calling themselves emperors after defeating France again.
Those titles tend to show up again and again in history.
The HRE is aesthetic
Dynastic bordergore with a mishmash of feudal lords and titles under an elective* monarchy with less power than the lords it oversees is just an interesting concept, and allows for more internal political maneuvers by foreign lords (whereas ducal France was mostly French houses with territories abroad, and feudal Japan was entirely isolated from Korean or Chinese dynasties).
I really do love the humor in all these videos. I've said it before and I'll say it again; memes and jokes really do help keep the viewers attention, and makes the information more memorable and easier to recall. I love these videos, and I think the formatting is both clever and hilarious
I’ve just discovered your channel and liked it very much. Could you do a video about rituals and magic? I don’t mean a magic system, but explaining how different societies develop different religions and how that would be different in a fantasy world where the religious beliefs are known to be real
Well, the thing is, just because the gods are actually real doesn't mean that everyone knows that. Remember, assuming your average joe does not have any formal education he has no means of distinguishing between genuine magic and technology. He could very easily believe that all priests are just tricking people. Or he might believe that his god is real, but other gods aren't. Or he might believe that all manner of completely mundane items are magical.
Those with formal education would know the difference between genuine magic and technology. But, if not all magic in the setting is divine they could very well believe that the gods aren't real. Or that only certain gods are real. They could even believe in gods that don't actually exist. If the setting contains immensely powerful beings who influenced humanoid civilization, they might very well be seen as gods even if they technically aren't.
The only way that people would know beyond any reasonable doubt that the gods exist, is if they have some way to interact with divine beings. In most settings, that's still something only priests or other clerics of the church would experience. A priest knows beyond any doubt that his god is real, and has good reason not to doubt a fellow priest's conviction (though, it should be pointed out that he still might). But, I do have to point out here: this is also generally speaking true in the real world too. You do not become a priest if you don't think that your god is real. I would have thought that was obvious even to an atheist.
If people who aren't priests or clerics are interacting with the divine directly in a fantasy world, there's gotta be a good reason. Why would gods in this setting get involved in politics, economics or social issues? What merits a god sending a divine servant, versus a priest? if gods still mainly work through priests, rather than divine servants, then there's no reason for religion to be different from how it is in the real world.
@@sophiejones7727 if regular people could just communicate with the gods, then there would be no need for clergy!
5:33 - 6:26 damn I felt that, and I'm not even Australian
The word you’re looking for to refer to the smallest, most basal form of human social organization changes depends on what field of study you talk to. Archaeology calls it “band” society, defined as groups of people who live, work, and often move together, with relatively equal distribution of resources and in most cases a situation specific form of leadership combined with general consensus as a form of making decisions (i.e. we all want to go hunting, let’s pick the guy who’s best at hunting to lead us, and then when we want to go gathering, we pick the gal who’s best at gathering to be leader). Such groups usually number around 25, and are typically pre-agrarian. That’s just in the field of archaeology though. Anthropology uses a different system. So does history. And i have no idea beyond that.
Whether or not the HRE can be considered a true empire depends a bit on the time period you're looking at though. Arguably when it first claimed that title the title was a lot more appropriate than it was towards the end of its lifespan.
Loving your content so far, please keep this up!!
It's nice to see a treatment of non-state societies (tribes) in fantasy worldbuilding. I'll mention that for most of human history, people lived in bands, which were smaller than most of the tribal societies seen later, after the advent of agriculture (think of tribal cultures in Africa, in the Americas, and for that matter in Europe before the Romans). I've covered some of these subjects here: medium.com/@Michael_Schultheiss/stone-age-to-star-age-world-building-societies-in-fiction-44bd259edaba
I remember the Empire jingle from before they added the 800, when it was just a local ad on WGN.
You have the best comedic timing I have seen in a while man!
head seat of a monarchy was defined as the eldest son of the previous ruler, or daughter in lieu of one comes from the idea that kings pass their power onto who they want. In almost every large culture at the time of kingdoms in Europe, Asia and Africa, the daughters join the family of their husbands and the sons stayed in the family, which was denoted by their surname, which meant the name given from those that you are descended from, which was taken by the wife, as in marriage two souls become one, essentially meaning that the wife and husband are the same collective person and thus share ancestors in their families surname tree. To help preserve your surname, which could have importance religiously or through your ancient ancestors, the king chose to give his land and power to his most mature son as his younger son may be less experienced/ ready and in marriage his daughter would lose the family name giving power to a different family instead, meaning that corruption and ill seen values would become more common. Furthermore, the surname gives you respect i.e Tudor which evoked images of stuffing the french and was used to describe the current better period that you lived in, which is why the Henry's and Liz the first were politically respected and liked widely. The problem came when Elizabeth chose not to marry to keep the name and to 'marry England' in her words which showed that she was a true monarch but as she could not produce a Tudor heir, the Tudor monarchy ended, handing power to their closest related family and partially because they were not 'Tudors' sparked a revolution, leading to a broadly German monarch, not a problem inherently, but we know that the royal family is now slightly less British and has led to an overall loss of centralised power in the royal family.
European powers colonised to expand knowledge, improve trade and grow influence all on the aim to make the world richer and promote industrialism and then modernism and automation, having power over places that could produce things not possible to produce in any other climate meant that there was free trade and you had control over taxing and governing the areas. The people became protected citizens of the respective empires and were employed and treated the same as the lower working class would at the capital of the empire. Tribal civilisations that existed in these areas however used slavery, a concept that was never explored outside of places like Italy where the Romans lived centuries ago. European settlers became migrants to Africa, who used their families backgrounds as European as a source of power as Europeans slowly started becoming the dominant global powers in these areas. Then with the advent of the concept of industrialise slavery, many slaves in these colonial places started being treated as slaves by the colonial powers but because the power of one slave is more important to a chief of a tribe than a global power, they were more neglected in the same sense as property was. Along with the colonisation of the new world, some of these slaves were sent over there, either by the African slave owning merchants or the newly colonial settlers that were slave owners. As the american settlers found fertile untapped lands the demand became so high for labour that unlawful and criminal traders would unbeknown to the colonial powers or to the settlers kidnap tribesmen who were not slaves but just citizens of tribes that couldn't say 'i'm not a slave' because they spoke a different language. we all know how the story goes from here, these slave traders becoming more blatant and well know that they were kidnapping innocent non slave Africans to the point that the American settlers and the colonial powers knew that this kept happening but didn't care enough for individuals that it wasn't stopped. But this was almost 300 years ago and although this was wrong, Even the most advanced civilisations were not smart or intellectually evolved enough to really have been given this level of power, but in the next 100 to 150 years we would see slavery become abolished in the Americas and a crack down on slave trade by colonial empires, more accurately depicting how we act and think now as any ideas that we hold as true now are broadly learnt from the mistakes and innovations of the past as although no-one alive then is alive now, we inherit the world from them and they are our models of how to utilise it.
Ultimately, these examples of people from the last millennium and how they acted and thought were correct and righteous for good reason at the time even if now we know better, today we deliberately leave tribes alone, not providing our knowledge of stuff we learnt from being in their situation with them out of respect for their culture, so i dont see how we cant just accept that the past was different and that they didnt know what we do now and we just let ourselves keep on learning because people in a couple hundred years will look at us in this same light as stupid and evil, even though i can confidently say that most people are just trying to be correct and good and live their best life, not intentionally being corrupt or evil, much like people of the past, and probably the people of the future too. Overall i just dont like it when people bring up these things to say how bad and tyrannical the world was when really everything has had many millions of lifetimes of thought put into it at the time and it just made the most sense to live like that as it helped guarantee that your life and the lives of your children would be the most secure and good and with knowledge that it would all improve over time because really, our lives now are only good because these people got on with it and held up their end and that our lives are really proof that they were right because if they were not then we'd still be living in the middle ages, the same way the the stone age, bronze age and the iron age were all so slow and never changed but we can see that innovation only accelerates in our new modern age because people before us created that mentality and sparked it, everything that was really bad then was learnt from, improved or removed so that our today is not the same as theirs.
personally i thank them, for their strengths, and their weakness.
As an Australian, the lil Emu War flashback honestly made me laugh so hard xD
People give the HRE/Habsburg Empire a hard time. But in fairness to it it was incredibly adaptable and flexible and in one form or another managed to exist for around about a 1000 years. At one point it controlled most of continental Western Europe and big chunks of Latin America, parts of Africa too. Like I think maybe DO be the HRE...
"don't be the Holy Roman Empire"
dON't bE THe HoLY roMan emPIrE
For anyone who thinks the Emus "won", look at what Wikipedia had to say.
"the bounty system that had been instigated in 1923 was continued, and this proved to be effective: 57,034 bounties were claimed over a six-month period in 1934".
really enjoyed this episode!
Was the emu war in the video or was that just a flashback?
It would be wrong to assume all peasants were serfs. "Peasant" simply means anyone who works the land themselves. There is a substantial difference between a serf, who doesn't own the land they work and a yeoman who does. Though both could be described as a peasant, and might live in similarly terrible conditions, a serf does not own the means of production while a yeoman does. A yeoman also votes in local elections (such as for city mayor, alderman, etc) while a serf does not. Though I'm using the English term "yeoman" these people existed in other nations as well: particularly France. While all the native Gallic people were serfs, the lower class Franks were in fact free to choose their allegiance: until about the 1300s when intermarriage had erased nearly all distinction between Gaul and Frank. By that time, the medieval period was almost over though. As you go farther east: serfdom becomes more common. Likewise as you go farther forward in time. But this represents the feudal system breaking down, rather than the way it was supposed to work. From the 5th Century AD, to the 10th Century most people in Western Europe actually were free (as in, had freedom of movement). Not that life didn't suck, but life sucks a lot less when you have the option to avoid bullies by moving.
11:07 or Holy, or Roman. And the entire point of it's existence was to dunk on the Byzantines.
Many lords had more than one manor. Also the serfs can further be divided to slaves, cottagers, virgaters (people that own a couple acres of land, usually enough to feed themselves), villeins, and freedmen. Often serfs -could- leave the manor, but just needed either a holiday, permission, or to pay a fee.
Great vid, although I think the explanation of feudalism you made could be improved. First of all, the king isn't really on a separate strata since he is "primus inter pares" the first among equals. Also, in that sense, I wouldn't really make a distinction between knights and nobles since it's a bit redundant. As for european feudalism, I think the tripartite separation of nobility-clergy-commoners applies better than king->nobles->knights->commoners.
When it comes to class system, isn't it divided into farmer/worker, citizen/merchant, priest, nobility. But perhaps that depends on country of origin, or language difference.
Erica T well all classes were heavily subdivided so you had slaves serfs free farmers and merchants, artisans and fisherman. There were about a dozen of Titels a noble or knight could hold and then there was the church
Great info and your personal take is easy to digest. Just... don't give more than a few seconds to a single joke or meme anymore.
If you're referring to the emu montage, it deserves a monument in all towns and a moment of silence each day.
I actually disagree with soshp. I thought that 1 minute joke was absolutely hilarious and wanted to comment on it! I love your sense of humour! :)
Disagree!! Disagree!! Memes and jokes really do keep my attention and help me retain the information. Makes it memorable and defined, a specific reference to an information source.
I thought it was clever and hilarious
gonna have to disagree on the entire primogeniture thing, there has been a ton of different succession laws throughout history and having primogeniture as a requirement for being a kingdom is silly.
and the holy roman empire didn't split up because of gavelkind, that's a dumb meme that people keep falling for
I basically don't know anything about the holy roman empire, except that proto-germans were involved.
The gavelkind meme needs to die, a lot of the gavelkind practicing dynasties ended up being unified ultimately, like the Bavarian Wittelsbach, part of the Saxon Wettins, Austrian Hapsburgs, Pommeranian Welfs(even if they were annexed) and some others.
@@g-rexsaurus794 I mostly just hate gavelkind because of ck2
Americans when the trees are speaking Vietnamese
Russians when the snow is speaking Finnish
Australians when the bush is speaking Emu
Never forget the great emu war
*NO! PLEASE!!* not the emu war!!! Don't remind us mate!
Oh and thanks for this video, I have learned a lot of it
Nice video. Loved back to back references to Leviathan and Territory Wars.
Nothing better than a thicc Unitary Canada with Mr Creepy Face in HOI4
The concept of a familial tribe I would call kindredism, though that is just my opinion: for it is not a real word.
A power ruling only those of a homogeneous culture is not considered an empire, because an empire is a sovereign ruling over multiple, and therefore foreign, cultures and ethnicities. A local, homogeneous empire is simply called a local power.
A kingdom is defined as a country with one or more rulers with substantial power and life-long office. A kingdom can have more than one, as in the Spartan diarchy. Although not yet considered one realm, the ancient kindoms of England (Northumbria, East Anglia, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex) is often called the English heptarchy.
A nation-state is considered a sovereign nation in which the citizens consider themselves of their nation and often incorporate it into their identity.
There was a difference between serfs ans peasants. While serfs were technically not slaves, they were subjects of their manor's lord. Peasants on the other hand were free and independent, but very quite poor. They had no lord and lived in towns and cities.
Also, what you said about interstate treaties... I would call it international.
>A power ruling only those of a homogeneous culture is not considered an empire, because an empire is a sovereign ruling over multiple, and therefore foreign, cultures and ethnicities. A local, homogeneous empire is simply called a local power.
So the Byzantine empire Japanese empire, German empire are not empires? That definition makes no sense.
>Peasants on the other hand were free and independent, but very quite poor. They had no lord and lived in towns and cities.
Peasants did not live in towns and cities, there are words for people living in urban areas specifically.
actualy an empire is a construct that in which one group rules over other groups that can be differentiated by culture ,and or ethnic heritage,
for example the holy roman empire in which predominantly germans ruled over 1. other german tribes, and 2. over italians, and slavs(bohemia)
The actual definition of an empire is a polity where the head of state is titled Emperor.
The craziest thing about the Emu war is that the Emus won..... Australians had guns but as the wiki pages says, "The Emus persisted."
What’s the song playing during the Emu War part?
5:12 just by looking at all the colonial architecture of hispanoamerica and comparing it to the buildings in Spain in the same period we can know than most of that resources stayed there due to the impossibility of Spain to take all of those resources to the peninsula.
Every time he says Monarch I keep hearing.
"BEEARE THE POWER OF THE MIGHTY MONAAAAAAARCH!"
Thanks for the info! Really helpful!
What happened to the empire ads? I always heard it as "and pi!" and never bothered to check
In Kings and emperors: the german word for emperor should be "Kaiser", however in the middle ages the rulers of the german empire could not call themselves " Kaiser" without being coronated by the Pope. So the destinction between king and emperor is not solely based in the country they govern.
WOW the Catalonia reference took me by surprise hahaha
Me too. WOW!
Not to sound pedantic, but the Empire Today ad is from the Sioux Falls, SD area, often referred to as the Sioux Empire.
Thanks for doing my very weirdly specific hobby and passion as an entire channel and making me binge watch it all
Fuck you though for having like, less videos than Australia has had Prime Ministers in the last 20 years, because hot damn this is good content and boy do i need more.
You failed your MAJESTY! I’m a KNIGHT, like my father before.
King: So bet it…
Hey, great vid.
Odd question - what's the name of that song you used for the Emu War bit? Is it from LotR?
Yep...but I don't think it has a title.
....
What empire/people/faction is being depicted at 0:11?
Also in feudalism there is not need to give all your land to your elsedst son, the inheritance can be organized as you like.
"Kingdom is a word that worldbuilders and writers love to use without much thought"
I mean you literally just used empire in such a vague way, it all lies in the false assumption that you can translate the meaning of emperor to other cultures, political systems, languages etc. which is faulty to begin with.
The meaning of being an empire was for the entirery of history mostly pagan or christian based, simply because other cultures and religious group used different titles for different reasons.
Conflating actual formal empires with the descriptive ahistorical usage is really a problem because the characteristics you give to empires aren't actually going to appear in many of the states we call empires.
Before I even watched this video, the way he defined an empire is the way i would define a modern empire. Empire used to be a word to describe Rome and people who claim to be their successor. but as no one is truly a successor to Rome the best use of the word would be, any country that is multicultural is an empire rather than a Nation. Its why a place like the US can remain a nation while something like Austria-hungary is an empire. Also I would only ever use the term "kingdom" for monarchies, or as a descriptor to get a scope of its size.
Is Japan an empire?
Depends on what time era. Japan had an empire prior to ww2, nowadays they do not. They lost everything that wasn't Japanese when they lost ww2.
The problem is more that you can call anything anything for any reason, and that's just a thing that you've done.
Understanding empire is as simple as understanding the title "king of kings." An empire is a state of states, as a lesser state is a state of people.
The USA could very easily be called an empire, even within it's own borders, never mind it's territories, or it's hegemonic influence. If anything really differentiates it, you might argue it's the lack of absolute rule of the government over it's members, but then you have to get into weird questions like whether a federation is an empire.
Ultimately, the terms are arbitrary and abstract. Trying to reconcile different definitions will only lead to confusion, so you really ought only find an accurate set of terms by which to reason about it.
The Byzantine Empire post Arab invasions was not really a state of states, nor was the Japanese empire or many others.
You have a great sense of humor
Does anyone know the music playing in the background?
Hello, youtube served this video up to me randomly. Just wanted to say great job. I've subscribed. I would like to ask you about the picture of the city at 3:29. I'm not familiar with the art. Is this a historical or fantasy city?
Again, great video and thanks!
vanderpike that’s an illustration of a Mesopotamian city state, but I wouldn’t be able to tell you which. Thank you very much!
Hold on, not even 30 seconds in and I already have to say something.
This very obvious idea over what tribalism is, is wrong. It's in-group preference, out-group differentiation.
It's NOT hatred or dislike of other tribes, though it can certainly become those.
People naturally tend to trust people they know and distrust people they don't know. In ancient times, a tribe should view every incoming group of people as potential enemies.
Of course when it becomes active hate of other people's and justification for aggression or invasion it is more questionable
I can't believe you also played that castle themed browser card game, please please see this comment and remind me what it's called because I miss it
We need an extended version of that emu war montage.
OH MY GOD! I remember this flash game. 10:28
Nicely done. Subbed
Man that's exactly what I was looking for
MOAR.
GIVE US MOAR!!!
Cool video; loved emu flash back. Hey just curious, what is the game shown on 3:50?
Heart's of Iron 3.
A World War Two grand strategy video game in were you can play as any nation that existed during that time.
1:47 I would very much like to know the context behind that painting (& especially that flex) …. 😳
Its painting of athletic training for youths in Ancient Sparta IIRC. Like ancient gym class lol. And I think the dude was stretching, not flexing.
Almost died from a PTSD attack when I saw the Emu War flashback.
Just subbed, upvoted! This is a great video.
An empire is when distict groups of people (nations) are all ruled over by one, in an asymmetrical relationship.
Brain for breakfast, paraphrased (very little)
What the gulf part 1 nation building.
Localism - anthropologists use the term "kinship groups".
I lost it at the Emus, even though I knew it was coming!
I’m from Australia and I can say the emu empire was the most scariest empire in history
At 6:00, what music is that?
Thank you!
Yes us Australians have a great history... of killing giant birds XD
Jlinus *getting killed by giant birds
Hail Giratina The true god
That's debatable mate
Australia doesn't exist and your an actor.
Not our proudest moment
My fantasy state has a monarch, inherited, who appoints the legislature and judiciary, however he only directly has veto power
So basically Liechtenstein but parliament isn't elected by the people
So from this video I've learned that Serbia is more accurately the city state of Belgrade. Good to know.
RIP to all the vets and glorious dead in our Great Emu War. Gone, but never forgotten. 🌺
Whas the song used during the emu scene
"Bridge of Khazad Dum" in Lord of the Rings. Very Copywrighted. Good thing this video isn't monetized.
0:11 Japanese Bobby B and Rhaegar Targaryen on the Trident.
3:10
MOre importantly the soldiers often serve out of their own free will which does handicap them because they can't use them as effectively. They need to keep in the good graces of their soldiers.
As an Australian, I am deeply wounded by the fact that we never studied the Emu War in school, and I never even heard of such a hilarious military failure until years after graduating.
Samonella
I think your localism is actually called cthonianism. It just means that the people are governed by traditions dating back to time immemorial which are passed down by word of mouth.
Pyramid at 9:00: Cringe*
Where are the artisans, where are the clergy, traders, and money lenders? Where are the skilled craftsmen? You realize that the knights were an extension of the nobility right? As in only the nobility could afford to be knights? Kings were also an extension of the nobility. Who was the greater protector than the king? This chart, and the following speech, genuinely makes me cringe in pain
Completely agreed.
The feudal pyramid is a faulty visualisation of the various complex legal and personal bonds between the estates, vassals, merchant classes and everything inbetween.
And that has nothing to do with the argument being made...
I know you're right btw
As an Aussie the reference to the Emu war made me laugh however, the war is still going to this date
Αs an anthropology major, I really liked this video