Aversion to Monarchs

[cparle87]

Well, in case of the Horde there is a very strong imperative not to invest too much power into a single person, given how many fuckups they've had. That goes doubly so for the corruption-prone races like Blood Elves, orcs and undead.

The Alliance are a strange case, as the name implies many parties, without a single leader, yet the position of high king goes against its nature, as such it would be better to return it to an alliance.
And even an alliance can have kings; elected monarchy for the gnomes, hereditary monarchy for the dwarves, gilneas and stormwind, theocracy for the elves and draenei, aristacratic republicanism for the kul tirans and communism for the void elves (j/k, dunno what they'd qualify as).

So basically what i'm saying: The story just happens to call for it, strongly in case of the horde (though even they have a true empress among their leaders / allies), but the setting still incorporates many forms of leadership, many of which are monarchical or close to it.

I think people take the concept of high king a little too far. I always saw it as an equivalent to the supreme commander of the allied forces in WW2. He's not their political or state leader, but the one chosen by consensus to be their overall military commander.

[Iain]

WoW has always been medieval fantasy with modern attitudes.

That said, you can use 'councils' as a narrative device for interesting plots, like the Arcane series on Netflix proved,

OR it can be used as a cop-out to keep the story tepid and lame, basically just characters standing in the room discussing things, one getting angry and storming out while the remaining continue with whatever they were doing because they're basically all the same character in a different skin.

This is honestly the bigger debate: What defines fantasy? Genre is more than just aesthetics. Some people like to define Fantasy as a type of story rather than a collection of motifs: For example, you've probably heard the argument Star Wars isn't sci-fi, it's fantasy; only without the aesthetics of medieval europe, instead using the aesthetics of the cold war. This angle asserts that Fantasy & Sci-fi are both stories about people living in extraordinary times, where Fantasy is based on historical parable, Sci-fi is speculative.

I always thought that take (I realise it's not yours) was pretentious. "Jedi are wizards with laser swords and spaceships" is a quote I heard one too many times. For one, the two genres aren't mutually exclusive, in fact, the way most sci-fi is written almost makes fantasy a necessity for the genre because they always contain elements that are fantastical and beyond the scope of even the wildest science. Not every sci-fi has to be the Martian, which is one big love letter to science (at least the novel is).

Star Wars is sci-fi. It's superficial popcorn sci-fi. But it's still sci-fi regardless. Clones, robots and planet-destroying super weapons aren't just aesthetic, they're actual science-based problems on which the plot is based. Not intelligently, it's not profound, but by involving these issues in the story, the movies placed themselves well into science fiction. That it also includes magical / mystical elements is not a disqualifier.

Flash Gordon would be a movie that strays further from actual science fiction. It's a space opera, but here space and futuristic looking palaces are just that, scenery.

[Kent088]

Jeez, he's not the only one that's confused.

Are you admitting something about your constant bad faith posts?

[Iheartnathanos]

I think I'll send that right back at you. Saying "until the early modern period monarchies are universally accepted without scepticism" is just incorrect. People didn't just FORGET that the Roman Republic or Greek poles existed. The people who were actually doing political discourse certainly knew, and most medieval "monarchies" were FAR less absolutist than the ones we classically associate with the "typical" monarchy, i.e. English or French models more influenced by 16th century and later monarchies than the actual ones from the Middle Ages (indeed it wasn't until 1603 that England became that kind of monarchy under James I).

Earlier monarchies were largely centered around one singular model, which was that of the Holy Roman Emperor. And that was a very complicated system of interconnected ruling paradigms involving various kings and of course the Pope; even someone like Charlemagne (arguably the archetypical medieval monarch) was only made Emperor through intervention. The divine right of kings was a popular legend more than a political reality - those "monarchies" were far more oligarchical than people realize, and certainly far more so than the centralized, absolutist monarchies of the early modern period. Not surprising, considering that the limitations of technology made that impractical during the Middle Ages, requiring high degrees of delegation within a domain. As a result "monarchy" was an abstract concept justifying hegemonic rule far more so than lived reality for the majority of commoners - and an intricate system of distributed Realpolitik for the privileged. The pageantry of absolutist monarchs is not a medieval experience; it's really only from the 17th century and onward that this was even feasible.

And here's the point I'm trying to make: people KNEW that was the reality. No one who seriously discussed monarchy during that period was "without skepticism", as you put it; they didn't need to be, because they knew how the system worked, and that the monarch was just one political tool among many. That's why even the most divinely appointed rulers like Popes were frequently subject to political whims, were deposed and counter-elected, and so on. No one had illusions about the reality of monarchy, at least not among those who could afford to think about things at all in the first place. It's not really fair to count commoners during that period, who were largely illiterate, ignorant of most larger political structures, and so busy not starving to death they couldn't really afford to speculate about the nature of their system of government. That, too, only really became a more widespread activity with the advent of the modern period, when technology allowed for more secure existence, wider dissemination of information, and greater personal mobility.

What you're talking about isn't the medieval life - it's the life of the 16th and 17th century that we've come to associate with quasi-medieval societies because of popular cultural depictions that are wildly removed from historical realities.

Bravo, you have a Bachelor of Arts too.

[Feanoro]

I think people take the concept of high king a little too far. I always saw it as an equivalent to the supreme commander of the allied forces in WW2. He's not their political or state leader, but the one chosen by consensus to be their overall military commander.

The High King was explicitly stated by Metzen to be exactly that, the military commander.

In practice, it became the Blue Warchief and a crutch for writers who openly state they don't like writing Alliance.

[Gaidax]

First of all Warcraft is not a medieval fantasy. You have flying spaceships, robots and what not. Very medieval.

Warcraft as a whole is mix of just about everything you can imagine, so I am not sure why it's so strange here to see various systems of rule.

And for the Horde side it's a natural evolution too seeing how they had a string of bad leaders with bad choices that time and again failed their people. It'd be sheer idiocy to "elect" any other glorious supreme leader and hope it works out.

Other than that - you have plenty monarchies there as is anyway.

[Nerovar]

I think I'll send that right back at you. Saying "until the early modern period monarchies are universally accepted without scepticism" is just incorrect. People didn't just FORGET that the Roman Republic or Greek poles existed. The people who were actually doing political discourse certainly knew, and most medieval "monarchies" were FAR less absolutist than the ones we classically associate with the "typical" monarchy, i.e. English or French models more influenced by 16th century and later monarchies than the actual ones from the Middle Ages (indeed it wasn't until 1603 that England became that kind of monarchy under James I).

Earlier monarchies were largely centered around one singular model, which was that of the Holy Roman Emperor. And that was a very complicated system of interconnected ruling paradigms involving various kings and of course the Pope; even someone like Charlemagne (arguably the archetypical medieval monarch) was only made Emperor through intervention. The divine right of kings was a popular legend more than a political reality - those "monarchies" were far more oligarchical than people realize, and certainly far more so than the centralized, absolutist monarchies of the early modern period. Not surprising, considering that the limitations of technology made that impractical during the Middle Ages, requiring high degrees of delegation within a domain. As a result "monarchy" was an abstract concept justifying hegemonic rule far more so than lived reality for the majority of commoners - and an intricate system of distributed Realpolitik for the privileged. The pageantry of absolutist monarchs is not a medieval experience; it's really only from the 17th century and onward that this was even feasible.

And here's the point I'm trying to make: people KNEW that was the reality. No one who seriously discussed monarchy during that period was "without skepticism", as you put it; they didn't need to be, because they knew how the system worked, and that the monarch was just one political tool among many. That's why even the most divinely appointed rulers like Popes were frequently subject to political whims, were deposed and counter-elected, and so on. No one had illusions about the reality of monarchy, at least not among those who could afford to think about things at all in the first place. It's not really fair to count commoners during that period, who were largely illiterate, ignorant of most larger political structures, and so busy not starving to death they couldn't really afford to speculate about the nature of their system of government. That, too, only really became a more widespread activity with the advent of the modern period, when technology allowed for more secure existence, wider dissemination of information, and greater personal mobility.

What you're talking about isn't the medieval life - it's the life of the 16th and 17th century that we've come to associate with quasi-medieval societies because of popular cultural depictions that are wildly removed from historical realities.

You really are missing the point. Everything you said is pretty much unrelated to what is being discussed here. The posts weren't about the distinction between feudalism and absolutism or about individual monarchs being deposed. It was about the idea that the average person would be questioning the monarchy as an institution which is a completely bogus injection of modern ideas into a wildly different time period.

[Aucald]

You really are missing the point. Everything you said is pretty much unrelated to what is being discussed here. The posts weren't about the distinction between feudalism and absolutism or about individual monarchs being deposed. It was about the idea that the average person would be questioning the monarchy as an institution which is a completely bogus injection of modern ideas into a wildly different time period.

The insistence that Azeroth's kingdoms would also be feudal or monarchal is also an injection of modern ideas into a wildly different time period and setting. The people of Azeroth are fundamentally different from us with different ideas, different histories, and even different technologies (e.g. magic, magitech, and alternative tech) - what they might want or desire out of basic governance is anyone's guess. There's really no way to know how it would go, and therefore it is open to any line of interpretation and/or speculation.

I would imagine that if Earth were invaded multiple times by an extraterrestrial threat, our mode of governance might change a great deal as we adapt to a collective threat that makes us overcome our own tribal inclinations.

[Biomega]

It was about the idea that the average person would be questioning the monarchy as an institution which is a completely bogus injection of modern ideas into a wildly different time period.

That depends on what you mean by "average person". It's not really fair to say oh well illiterate peasants working 15 hours a day didn't really consider criticizing the institution of monarchy, because they didn't really consider much of ANYTHING.

But among the people who COULD consider things, there was plenty of awareness of the functional character of monarchic rule, its historical precedents and antecedents, and its problems and limitations. That's why we got documents like e.g. the Magna Carta that mediated between monarchic authority and oligarchic rule. The people involved in that were acutely aware of the problems of uncritical and unquestioned monarchy. And you can infer the same for other monarchies during other medieval periods, where the political realities documented at the time show us quite clearly that this was FAR from a simple system of king = ruler, the end.

Now, you're right of course that in settings like WoW that's not really what we're talking about, for several reasons. One reason is most definitely the fact that contemporary epistemes are projected onto a quasi-historical setting, and that of course no one in actual medieval or early modern history would think of things the way that we think of them now. But that doesn't mean they didn't articulate SOME things we also concern ourselves with now, albeit doing so in a different way. So you may not have found people overtly referencing gender identity politics or disenfranchisement or whatever during those time periods, but you CAN find examples of people working through issues related to that in more indirect, more subtle ways. Literature and art, for example.

Another reason, though, is that despite the common vernacular of calling WoW and similar fantasy settings "medieval" they are actually FAR more similar to European early modern periods - not so much 10th or 12th century as it is 16th or 17th century. And once you get into that, it makes a lot more sense to draw parallels to the flagrant, centralized monarchies in the vein of France or England. Which also explains why there's more reactionary elements and overt criticism, which falls into that same general historical period.

[Nerovar]

The insistence that Azeroth's kingdoms would also be feudal or monarchal is also an injection of modern ideas into a wildly different time period and setting. The people of Azeroth are fundamentally different from us with different ideas, different histories, and even different technologies (e.g. magic, magitech, and alternative tech) - what they might want or desire out of basic governance is anyone's guess. There's really no way to know how it would go, and therefore it is open to any line of interpretation and/or speculation.

I would imagine that if Earth were invaded multiple times by an extraterrestrial threat, our mode of governance might change a great deal as we adapt to a collective threat that makes us overcome our own tribal inclinations.

This whole comment chain wasn't even really related to World of Warcraft so I don't know why you're bringing this up.

That depends on what you mean by "average person". It's not really fair to say oh well illiterate peasants working 15 hours a day didn't really consider criticizing the institution of monarchy, because they didn't really consider much of ANYTHING.

But among the people who COULD consider things, there was plenty of awareness of the functional character of monarchic rule, its historical precedents and antecedents, and its problems and limitations. That's why we got documents like e.g. the Magna Carta that mediated between monarchic authority and oligarchic rule. The people involved in that were acutely aware of the problems of uncritical and unquestioned monarchy. And you can infer the same for other monarchies during other medieval periods, where the political realities documented at the time show us quite clearly that this was FAR from a simple system of king = ruler, the end.

Now, you're right of course that in settings like WoW that's not really what we're talking about, for several reasons. One reason is most definitely the fact that contemporary epistemes are projected onto a quasi-historical setting, and that of course no one in actual medieval or early modern history would think of things the way that we think of them now. But that doesn't mean they didn't articulate SOME things we also concern ourselves with now, albeit doing so in a different way. So you may not have found people overtly referencing gender identity politics or disenfranchisement or whatever during those time periods, but you CAN find examples of people working through issues related to that in more indirect, more subtle ways. Literature and art, for example.

Another reason, though, is that despite the common vernacular of calling WoW and similar fantasy settings "medieval" they are actually FAR more similar to European early modern periods - not so much 10th or 12th century as it is 16th or 17th century. And once you get into that, it makes a lot more sense to draw parallels to the flagrant, centralized monarchies in the vein of France or England. Which also explains why there's more reactionary elements and overt criticism, which falls into that same general historical period.

Again, I don't dispute that the small amount of people who were concerned with rulership and politics had some thoughts about the extent of a monarchs power. This is still not really related to the original claim which was the idea that "societies" would be skeptical of monarchs (as an institution) within the medieval world. I don't know why you are writing these really verbose replies that are at best tangential to the discussion.

As for WoW, it's mostly a hodgepodge of popular conceptions about the middle ages which naturally includes some modern elements because most people use the "middle ages" as a giant canvas on which they can project every negative pre-industrial historical stereotype they know of (witch hunts being a prominent example). However, that doesn't mean everything is perceived as "fair game" as far as anachronisms are concerned.

[Aucald]

This whole comment chain wasn't even really related to World of Warcraft so I don't know why you're bringing this up.

The thread, however, is. It also underscores the point of the comment chain is equally founded on pure speculation.

[Kent088]

I always thought that take (I realise it's not yours) was pretentious. "Jedi are wizards with laser swords and spaceships" is a quote I heard one too many times. For one, the two genres aren't mutually exclusive, in fact, the way most sci-fi is written almost makes fantasy a necessity for the genre because they always contain elements that are fantastical and beyond the scope of even the wildest science. Not every sci-fi has to be the Martian, which is one big love letter to science (at least the novel is).

Star Wars isn't just sci fi - Its a space opera. A form of sci fi that emphasizes melodrama, chivalry, and often a bringing in of the classics into space.

[Cheezits]

The only WoW society STILL EXISTING that really fits a classic monarchy is Stormwind. However, the game refuses to get into Stormwind culture and politics since Vanilla and probably won't again until a revamp (which has been hinted at with Turalyon's comments about the house of nobles, which hasn't been referenced in a long time).

Otherwise Warcraft seems to be a story mostly about moving PAST monarchies: see, Arthas and the Bad Warchiefs.

[bmjclark]

I think the horde has a council at this point because all the big names are dead, retired or sidelined (Garrosh, Cairne, Saurfang, Thrall, Sylvanas). Lorthemar and Baine are known characters but they aren't exactly huge names even after the bit of development they've gotten lately.

The forsaken kind of have a huge issue. Sylvanas was really the only big name in the Forsaken. There were minor people around like Voss but a not insignificant amount of players would of just said "who?" if she became the only leader

[Claymore]

I've noticed this as well, and it's definitely a case of "injecting modern political ideology into a game". Some, like FFXIV, fit well enough. WoW, on the other hand, really doesn't.

Ironically, Blizzard's current storytellers have completely misunderstood and thus REVERSED both of the factions. The Horde was ALWAYS the faction where "there is one, sole leader who calls the shots". It's literally the basis of the most primitive tribes, which is that might makes right, and the strongest rules. Thrall marked a subtle shift, in where many chose to follow him for his wisdom, not just strength alone. But yeah, then they just starting playing musical chairs with who got to be Warchief, and decided to completely break apart the Horde and turn it into a democracy. Which is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what the Horde's races are all about.

Conversely, the Alliance was -- true to its name -- literally an ALLIANCE of INDEPENDENT nations, agreeing to come together under one banner. Yet they've never once touched on that, and instead decided to treat them as one single nation, and give them a "High King" that calls all the shots.

Now, this is PURE speculation, but it's pretty well documented that a lot of Blizzard's staff (at least, back in the day) preferred the Horde. I suspect that when Game of Thrones came out, and they realized how interesting stories about political-intrigue can be, they decided "we should do something like that!". But instead of doing that with the faction that might actually make sense, they instead decided "let's just reverse the factions; Alliance will get a singular leader and nothing really happens, but the Horde will become a bunch of independent factions vying for power".

Regardless, I would definitely like to see more RACIAL identity, PARTICULARLY in the Alliance. I love my Human Paladin and all his very traditional "Human Alliance" themes, but I want to see the Dwarves and the Draenei get some more time in the spotlight. Same for the Tauren, actually, and not just "introducing yet ANOTHER distant sub-race".

[Ersula]

I always thought that take (I realise it's not yours) was pretentious. "Jedi are wizards with laser swords and spaceships" is a quote I heard one too many times. For one, the two genres aren't mutually exclusive, in fact, the way most sci-fi is written almost makes fantasy a necessity for the genre because they always contain elements that are fantastical and beyond the scope of even the wildest science. Not every sci-fi has to be the Martian, which is one big love letter to science (at least the novel is).

Star Wars is sci-fi. It's superficial popcorn sci-fi. But it's still sci-fi regardless. Clones, robots and planet-destroying super weapons aren't just aesthetic, they're actual science-based problems on which the plot is based. Not intelligently, it's not profound, but by involving these issues in the story, the movies placed themselves well into science fiction. That it also includes magical / mystical elements is not a disqualifier.

Flash Gordon would be a movie that strays further from actual science fiction. It's a space opera, but here space and futuristic looking palaces are just that, scenery.

I do side with the idea that there is a spectrum at work here, I'm going to have to back up the pretension: Even when comparing the subgenres of "Hard Sci Fi" and "Soft Sci Fi" thematically and aesthetically, Star Wars is far removed. Unlike the technology we see in a series like Star Trek, what we see in Star Wars isn't even theoretically possible. Sorry, but a laser will never blow up a planet: That's impossible. But a huge empire wiping a civilization off the map? That has a strong historical basis. Not to mention the original trilogy itself is based on historical dramas from a number of different cultures.

What we know as the Fantasy Genre started with the Hobbit & Lord of the Rings (The term originated as a reaction to these works; while he was writing them Tolkien & friends were still referring to them as "Fairy Tales") and while he used the aesthetics of medieval Europe I think its good to divorce the concept from aesthetics. You really can tell a story in a world based on any kind of aesthetic you want, and in that way LoTR & Star Wars are the two biggest examples of the Fantasy Genre ever made.

As for just a general aversion to monarchs, you can't expect a modern attitude to seep into the art. Obstinately, we have a strong "Monarchs are bad" cultural concept. Does that miss the point of the genre? Not exactly. I don't think you can pinpoint what the "point" of a genre is, and that's likely why our concepts of genre change radically over time. And there still are examples of Monarchy going unquestioned in fantasy: We have the Legend of Zelda, Historical series like the Crown, and Game of Thrones despite being thematically.... confusing regarding monarchy; paying lip service to modern ideals of democracy, but also suggesting Jon Snow would make a good leader because "he doesn't want it" despite that one time he killed a child out of anger. (So glad WoW is hiring a new narrative lead after Danuser was uncritically praising that finale)

[Snufflupagus]

No, sorry, but they were not. This is ahistorical. You start getting people experimenting with republics in small states like Venice and the Netherlands but until the early modern period monarchies are universally accepted without scepticism.

This is so laughably untrue you could only believe this if you have absolutely zero in depth knowledge of history. Monarchies have never been universally accepted without scepticism anywhere since about the Roman period, and we can only say that because we don’t have sufficient pre-Roman sources to really know.

Feudalism, to take a well-known example, was basically a whole system based on being suspicious about monarchy. The Magna Carta was a document where everyone got together and put limits on the monarchy because they thought it was a bad idea. Poland’s rzecspospolita was the same (if you squint you can see that the word descends from the same root as “republic”).

[Khaza-R]

There's a bit of overuse of it WoW for sure.

But WoW extremely suffers from writing from the modern viewers perspective rather than from the perspective of someone from the WarCraft universe. Its really one of the main reasons why the writing is so shallow and awful.

[StationaryHawk]

I think it was a historic position among the orcs that was not in constant use so much older but not meant to be active outside War.

We only know of one other scenario where the orc tribes united, and there's no mention of a warchief during that time.

Ironically, Blizzard's current storytellers have completely misunderstood and thus REVERSED both of the factions. The Horde was ALWAYS the faction where "there is one, sole leader who calls the shots". It's literally the basis of the most primitive tribes, which is that might makes right, and the strongest rules. Thrall marked a subtle shift, in where many chose to follow him for his wisdom, not just strength alone. But yeah, then they just starting playing musical chairs with who got to be Warchief, and decided to completely break apart the Horde and turn it into a democracy. Which is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what the Horde's races are all about.

This isn't really how it happened. The Horde didn't form as a result of an individual asserting their strength, but from the advice of a respected shaman. It was only after seeing how the clans were disorganized that Kil'jaeden instructed Gul'dan to install a warchief. Even when Blackhand was elected by the other chieftains to serve as the Horde's military leader, it was the Shadow Council (of which he was a member) that would actually lead the Horde.

[cparle87]

The High King was explicitly stated by Metzen to be exactly that, the military commander.

In practice, it became the Blue Warchief and a crutch for writers who openly state they don't like writing Alliance.

And yet there are people talking about how the other races have somehow subordinated themselves to the office and Varian is/was ruling them all. Talking about how un-Alliance it was, even though the original Alliance had a supreme commander too in Lothar. Wonder why they didn't just use that position again and save us all the nerdrage.

- - - Updated - - -

First of all Warcraft is not a medieval fantasy. You have flying spaceships, robots and what not. Very medieval.

Warcraft as a whole is mix of just about everything you can imagine, so I am not sure why it's so strange here to see various systems of rule.

And for the Horde side it's a natural evolution too seeing how they had a string of bad leaders with bad choices that time and again failed their people. It'd be sheer idiocy to "elect" any other glorious supreme leader and hope it works out.

Other than that - you have plenty monarchies there as is anyway.

There was a whole thread a whole ago about whether Warcraft could be considered high fantasy. Lots of folks were saying it used to be but now it isn't cause all the kitchen sink stuff was added, while others like me thought it never was high fantasy at all.