Administering the country - Help needed

[mithril]

1st some background -

The primary country in my WIP is that of Ishinar. Roughly 800 years ago, the fragmented states in this part of the world were united into one country by a previously unknown foreigner who founded the Ishinari monarchy. The Iron Laws laid down by one of his descendants some 100 years later are the basis of the Ishinari society and administration.

The monarchy is considered an enlightened one and the world is set in roughly 15th-16th century Earth equivalent time. Ability is valued highly and thus there is no strict feudal system. What I mean is that though the heir of the Duke will often inherit the administrative duties etc, the throne can appoint someone else to the position if it considers the heir as incompetent or someone else to be better suited to the task. I am not sure if this was clear

Question 1. - I am not sure what to call the administrative divisions in such a case.
Duchy, barony etc give the impression of rigid feudalism and the system is more like appointment to the position of governor in current times.
Province gives the impression to me of an area larger than what I had in mind, not to mention smacks of modern times... Though I'm sure they had provinces in earlier times too...
I thought of Borough... But again not sure...
District gives the impression that the area in question is too small... And same objections as for province regarding 'modern sounding name'
Suggestions?

Question 2. - Does the fact that the inheritance of the traditionally feudal roles is not a given seem unreal/implausible?

Thanks

[The Judge]

The word "province" in English goes back to the 14th century, and the Romans had provinces (provincia) so I'm not sure why you think it's modern! It doesn't necessarily denote a large area, but it does indicate somewhere under the adminstration of a larger body, eg a conquered territory or part of an empire. That to me is pretty much what you're getting at with the idea of somewhere headed by a governor.

The words duchy and barony indicate not administrative divisions but actual ownership of land, or at least tenure under the crown, which would be at odds with what you want, i think.

Borough relates to a small area, either an unincorporated town or part of a city (eg the Borough of Hammersmith) so isn't suitable, I wouldn't have thought. And district is too small, also.

If you want something a bit exotic, how about canton? That's an administrative district of a larger country. There's also dominion, though to me that is a larger-sounding word than province.


I can't see any problem with your world having governors who are not of the nobility -- or at least not originally of the nobility. What is most likely, I think, is that those who rise by ability are given the lands and economic power to back up their administrative duties, and usually that would bring with it titles in a system which has an hereditary monarch.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by mithril

What I mean is that though the heir of the Duke will often inherit the administrative duties etc, the throne can appoint someone else to the position if it considers the heir as incompetent or someone else to be better suited to the task.

Usually a system of governance will have administrators specifically tasked to perform these operations, with any royal figure simply acting as a "manager". That means they are more likely to delegate than sit in a little office working through volumes of text themselves.

If I've understood you right.

I'd also recommend you consider which area and time you are using for inspiration and then search Wikipedia for the appropriate administrative structures used then.

[Jennifer Cthulus]

I wonder if you should maybe consider looking into administrative subdivisions of feudal China. That's what your reference to governorships immediately brought to mind, for me, anyway.

Also, like I, Brian said, titled aristocracy will traditionally appoint other people to delegate their responsibilities to. Using the UK as an example, even in a relatively small administrative subdivision, the lord would appoint others to serve as judges, bailiffs, tax collectors, and so forth, rather than handling these things directly. Nice little article about that here, if you're interested:
http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/essay-3.html

And here's some deeper exploration of the subject if you're like me and find this sort of thing interesting:
http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/lord-of-the-manor.htm

[Venusian Broon]

Regarding question 2 I have no problem at all with hertiable lords losing there rights. It's happened all the time through history. The handing out of titles (and the lands, power and wealth that they represent) has I think always been primarily a question of politics - in that the Monarchy has the power to reward supporters and cast out traitors and undesirables.

As for adminstrative names I suppose it depends if you want something that 'smells' of the era your aiming for or if you want something radically different. Wikipedia be your guide as I Brian suggested!

I've always liked Marches for border regions (or old border regions) and the splendid Palatinate.

[mithril]

@Jennifer & I Brian - I understand the point about the 'lords' being more managers than actually doing all the duties of judges, bailiffs, tax collectors etc. However the idea that the individual’s rights and privileges are dependent on how well he discharges his social and familial duties and responsibilities is deeply entrenched in this society. So the lord does not own the lands. He is granted the honour of the rank on the understanding that he is responsible for the good management of the particular province/duchy etc.

@Judge - I like Canton. I kind of knew that Romans had provinces, but it doesn't 'smell' like my WIP (as VB said )

I can't see any problem with your world having governors who are not of the nobility -- or at least not originally of the nobility. What is most likely, I think, is that those who rise by ability are given the lands and economic power to back up their administrative duties, and usually that would bring with it titles in a system which has an hereditary monarch.

That was my idea exactly. The idea they had was that the title of lord is important only because it carries a lot of responsibilities. Anyone who is a lord is thus held to be quite capable (even if it's in a managing capacity). The provision for inheritance came in because it made things simpler. The children of a Lord could have had quite a bit of training in 'how to be a Lord' and usually it would be a safe bet that the new lord would not be completely incompetent. This became the norm over centuries but the crown still appoints new Lords in cases other than those of traitors etc. For ex if a lord gets into bad loans or otherwise shows mismanagement then a new lord is appointed. This is supposed to provide stability to the average man and is supposed to reduce the reasons for disenchantment with the government...

Does it make some sense? Can this be made to work in a novel? Or would it seem too much of an attempt at Utopia? Of course the system is less than ideal in other ways, and there are enough avenues for conflict etc.

[David Evil Overlord]

I believe the Japanese used the term "Prefecture" (or todōfuken in Japanese).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefectures_of_Japan

[Peter Graham]

The Iron Laws laid down by one of his descendants some 100 years later are the basis of the Ishinari society and administration.

So far so good.

The monarchy is considered an enlightened one and the world is set in roughly 15th-16th century Earth equivalent time. Ability is valued highly and thus there is no strict feudal system.

Feudalism was just one of a long line of political models, so departing from it is no great shakes. Incidentally, it had died out by the 15th century. By the 16th, everyone was prancing about in tights and ruffs.

What you need to bear in mind is that feudal lords - and their Saxon/Viking predecessors - held land in return for obligation. The king had no standing army and no comprehensive nationwide infrastructure for government. Put simply, early English kings could only rule by consent. To ensure consent, the king would give chunks of land (and with it the ability to become phenomenally rich) to his mates and, in return, they'd pay him tribute, supply him with fighting men when he needed them and do their bit to keep the Danes or the Welsh out.

If lords rebelled - which they did with frightening regularity - their lands would be forfeit and given to someone else. However, kings knew that the lumpen masses didn't always take too kindly to fresh lords. The phrase "No Prince but a Percy" was commonly known and understood in medieval Northumbria and basically meant that as far as the rank and file were concerned, they couldn't give two hoots who the king was, provided a member of the Percy family was their lord. Harry Hotspur in Shakespeare's Henry IV is a Percy, incidentally. So, kings would frequently be obliged to pardon rebels or revest land in them or their heirs in exchange for fresh pledges of obedience.

Your model is not so very different from this, although I question whether the notion of a 21st century meritocracy fits with notions of kingship, at least as they existed in this part of the world. That said, for a period of time pre-Conquest, English kings were elected - or, at least, validated - by the Witan, which was effectively a council of big landowners. Upon the death of Edward the Confessor, the throne should have gone to Edgar the Aetheling, who was the grandson of Edmund Ironside who had been king before Edward. However, the Witan feared Danish and Norman claims to the throne and basically thought a goon with a big axe would be a better bet. Thus they supported the claims of the earls of Wessex and Harold Godwinsson became king. Briefly.

Question 1. - I am not sure what to call the administrative divisions in such a case.

"Shire" or "riding" (both of which derive from words meaning a portion or division) might work.

I thought of Borough

Borough comes from Old English "beorg", meaning a fortified town.

Question 2. - Does the fact that the inheritance of the traditionally feudal roles is not a given seem unreal/implausible?

For the reasons as set out above, no. But you'd need to do it carefully.

Regards,

Peter

[Venusian Broon]

After posting a bit about China elsewhere, your ideas Mithril strike me as much more bureaucratic rather than aristocratic, as your governer/lord roles (for want of a better set of words) seem to be meritocratic and very job-like! The large bureaucratic empires of history all had quite strong processes and checks to prevent those at the heart of power (other than the emperor and his family) - say the governers of provinces or those working the civil service for the monarchy - passing on power and influence in inheritance.

The problem I suppose, with maintaining a feudal-like inheritance in your system (hence powerful families outside the Monarchy), is that it depends on everyone being very committed to the system and 'goody-two-shoes'. Would not an aristocratic family fight tooth and claw for power, influence and wealth? Either playing by the rules or bending and breaking them?

Oh and it sounds that accountants would be very well developed as a profession in your society. Possibly very good crooked accountants

[James Coote]

Originally Posted by Venusian Broon

The large bureaucratic empires of history all had quite strong processes and checks to prevent those at the heart of power (other than the emperor and his family) - say the governers of provinces or those working the civil service for the monarchy - passing on power and influence in inheritance.

In China's case, it isn't really about any one person becoming too powerful. It's more the realities of running a large empire. The mountains are high and the emperor is far away

[David Evil Overlord]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

Borough comes from Old English "beorg", meaning a fortified town.

Which I believe comes from "berg", meaning hill. Which would make sense, since fortressess were commonly built on top of hills.

[mithril]

Originally Posted by Venusian Broon

your governer/lord roles (for want of a better set of words) seem to be meritocratic and very job-like!

Yes it does seem like that The question is if it is that bad... I couldn't figure out an appropriate name for the governor/lord role either but for the time being I'm using Lord/Lady Warden.. If that makes some sense...

(Just to clarify, China is not my inspiration and posts citing China are primarily about mixing disparate cultures if required)

Originally Posted by Venusian Broon

The problem I suppose, with maintaining a feudal-like inheritance in your system (hence powerful families outside the Monarchy), is that it depends on everyone being very committed to the system and 'goody-two-shoes'. Would not an aristocratic family fight tooth and claw for power, influence and wealth? Either playing by the rules or bending and breaking them?

So I'm thinking that managing a given province/canton according to the established expectations and rules can be done without turning into a goody two shoes... So long as they meet the basic expectations, they are afterall free to plot and scheme however much they want. But yes the nobles (for lack of a better term) and the common people both are quite comitted to the system even if the personal rivalries etc exist. I don't think I should get into all the factors, but a major factor towards this is the religion (and Gods) of the world.

Originally Posted by Venusian Broon

Oh and it sounds that accountants would be very well developed as a profession in your society. Possibly very good crooked accountants

Well they might not be called accountants, but yeah anyone with specialised knowledge is valued.

@James - Here the reverse is true. The connections between the royalty and the people is high and consequently the loyalty is high. People still grumble about the taxes etc but since they also see the funds being used, the grumble never gets too loud.

@Peter - Yes I agree with the notion of a 21st century meritocracy not fitting too well with the kind of history that the european world has seen. However I also read somewhere that the king frequently conferred titles on individuals who they considered would make valuable contributions to their government and in many of such cases, the titles were only for the lifetime of the individual. (@Jennifer - Thanks for the links, especially the 2nd one) And the king's council frequently had those nobles who the king trusted to be faithful ans well as competent.

I'm basically taking those aspects alone. I personally don't agree with the notion that if a particular kind of society did not exist in a given time period in earth's history, it can also not exist on another world with roughly the same magitech level, given other social factors... Am I wrong? If I have to be constrained about the kind of societies and the kind of politics, the fantasy would start tending towards the historical I'd think. Of course I'd still like to maintain the 'feel'

Thanks also given to DEO for suggesting I read up the Japanese system of administration. That was interesting as well

[David Evil Overlord]

Your welcome, Mithril. Hope it helped.

[nightdreamer]

1) A lot of interesting etymology here, which is cool. But since you used the phrase "Earth equivalent," I'm assuming this is not Earth. So you can call them anything you want. Something, perhaps in the Ishinari language?2) Nope. Don't think it's a problem.

[Peter Graham]

Originally Posted by David Evil Overlord

Which I believe comes from "berg", meaning hill. Which would make sense, since fortressess were commonly built on top of hills.

Ten house points to that man!

Regards,

Peter