For the purposes of making a setting, what are the differences between despotism, feudal monarchy, absolute monarchy...

>democratic
Sure, there is still a state left.

>Sounds like a poorly made module
Is there any other kind

Despotism is something without popular support, maintain by force, players would encounter freedom fighters, old nobles, legalists against the government. The government is most military, possibly with one or two ambitious generals.
Feudal monarchy are highly decentralized, have many powerful vassals that can overthrown the king, people are loyal (if they are loyal) the their feudal lord and not the king.
Absolute monarchies have only the king, ton of intrigues and powerless nobles, an official army and government body. Many people support the king and he is somehow legitimate, there's space for freedom fighters and old nobles that want feudal monarch back.
Parliamentary monarchies are just like republics but with a king without power.

Huh?

That's how you make a genocide and puts a dictator on power

Only anarchosyndicalist communes are the answer.

I’m thinking though- can you have a despotic monarch without it being a tyranny? Naturally it turns towards that irl, but for fantasy terms could it work as a very streamlined monarchy with emphasis on military might?

for tangible flavour

>despotism
guy in charge does whatever the fuck they want by virtue of strength, pretty arbitrary

>feudal monarchy
king is in a constant power struggle with the lower nobles and may not even be the most important person in the government, internal conflicts over family stuff

>absolute monarchy
same as despotism, but less violence and more religious and legal authority

>parliamentary monarchy
the king needs support from the parliament for most decisions, while less tyrannical, it takes longer for laws and shit to pass, internal conflicts more due to political disagreements

or something like that idk

>Kill your king
>Now what?
>Make some dude your Emperor
Fucking French people

Like those that failed in Russia, those that failed in French or those that failed in Spain? if you to talk about your own ideology, there are many boards for it.

I don’t think there are enough monarchs for it to count as a genocide.

Basically this. The famous "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" scene aside, peasants, townsfolk, and adventurers aren't going be having esoteric political science discussions. Instead, they're going to be worried about just how often men with swords show up to ruin their day.

>I’m wondering how those flavors separate themselves.

You could do your own fucking homework for a change. You know, type the four governments you listed into a search engine and read the resulting Wiki pages. Even something as shitty as Wiki is going to give you info good enough for a RPG session.

If you are not a tyrant, you are called normal or regular monarchy, a despot is always a tyrant maintain only by force by definition.

Mate, untwist your panties, there is still a lot of mud to dig

There are enough regular folk for when the revolutionaries start to force people building they "utopia"

Could we say the difference between despotism and legalism is that one is backed by military force, and the other by law and beuracracy?

>despotism/absolute monarchy
virtually the same thing but despotism has more primitive/tribal connotations while absolutism tends to be more associated with the early modern period in Europe, highly embellished with things like golden ponies shitting stars and planets and thart sortof thing. Also under absolutism the power of the nobility is curtailed by royal authority.
>fuedal monarchy
more 'primitive' than absolutism, since it rarely has a strong central bureaucracy to manage things at a local level. Instead, power is handed out to dukes, who in turn pass power down to local lords, who in turn parcel out land to knights.
>parliamentary monarchy
In a historical context, pretty much every fuedal nation had some form of assembly where nobles and burghers could whine to the king. So the distinction is partly just anglos trying to make themselves more special. Only absolutists would do away with the assembly.

It's more about popular support and ancient custom; a despot have to use force to be seem as ruler, a king doesn't

But that’s less fun.
Not every revolt or revolution ends in a full circle. The American Revolution for instance.

Imagine basing my knowledge about 1000 years of human history in a comedy movie

You know that american revolution is revolution only in name, it was nothing more than a war for the right of doing what the colonies already did.

That doesn’t sound right though.

I’m thinking of Bronze Age civilizations like in the Mediterranean, or tribal kings. So like they aren’t absolutist or feudal but they are kings without checks and balances.

And given not every single one was a tyrant with the people seeking to overthrow them, there must be a bit more to it.

It was throwing out the old government (British monarchy) for new government (American republic) hence a revolution.

Most revolutions are kneecapped thanks to corruption, lack of experience, or too much ambition.

First off just ignore most of the replies above.

>Feudal monarchy
The king rules. He has many, many vassals. The land that the king directly owns can be less than 10% of a good feudal monarchy. Vassals can even happen to be stronger than the king, to have claims on their throne and start wars that fuck everything, see : the entirety of english history.
>Absolute monarchy
Like feudal monarchy but centralized. The king rules for real. All the power is concentrated in one court and in one person.
>Despotism
Same as absolute monarchy except the ruler doesn't have a divine claim to be king or anything of the sort.
>Parliamentary monarchy
There are so many kind of parliamentary monarchies it doesn't even make sense. See : england at different point of history for parliamentary monarchies that look nothing like each other.

>You know that american revolution is revolution only in name, it was nothing more than a war for the right of doing what the colonies already did.

user knows his stuff. The American Revolution was actually a counter-revolution. That's why it succeeded where all the others failed.

What ongoing revolution were the patriots countering?

The colonies already had it's own government, they fight against a new government England tried to impose, against change.

Not exactly a revolution, but England was trying to create a direct and centralized government, much like in Canada or Australia.

Either way though, the founding fathers were the radical leftists of their day, instituting democracy and liberalism on a scale unseen.

I say the difference was that enlightenment thinking was rational and logical, hence democracy worked because it was being realistic, compared to pie in the sky thinking of other revolutionaries.

>radical leftists
Does your ideology lacks heroes, so you need to steal from others?
Founding fathers, were slave owner, white man, married, pious Christians, frighted for illusionists ideology, hated French's Jacobins (the radical left of their times).

>Democracy = left wing
How can anybody truthfully be this stupid? The founding fathers strongly believed in property rights, an anglo-saxon identity for America, and in no wsy supported any form of wealth redistribution ( most of them were landowners ffs ). The closest ideology they fit is probably libertarianism with a dash of anlo nationalism. Read a fucking history book before posting garbage, please.

Doesn't make them any less leftists. You know, they had the same ideology as the french revolutionaries.

You're dumber than a nigger if you think that "leftists" are a monolith block and that Marx define that group.
If you had any knowledge of history you would know that the original left were anti-monarchy and the right were pro-monarchy.

Lol, imagine thinking that founding father, who don't liked Jacobins (that sited on the left and were responsible the modern left) and agreed with Girondins (that sited on the right, thus created the modern right) where somehow "lefities"

>can't be a leftist by the standards of the time because you're literally a white male

/pol/, you need to work on your delivery. Nobody's buying it. I know this usually goes over well within your echo chamber, but this is Veeky Forums.

You trying to convince me that democracy is a right wing ideology? Or that the monarchist loyalists were left of the political spectrum?

you're already on the internet, just look it up

What pile of crap, originally the left were those how sited in the "mountain" in revolutionary France parliament and the right those from the "plain", both were against monarchy

The original left: republican and anti monarchy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin

The original right: republican and anti monarchy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girondins

Where did I say leftism = marxism?? That's in no way the case, and in no way does limited government. There is of course the issue that the meanings of words change over time, but if we're speaking of words in their historical context then the meanings of left vs right didn't even exist in America at the time. After the war, the primary divide was between federalists (who still wanted smaller gov't than what exists today, but regardless ), and republican-democrats. It was a divide of authoritarian vs libertarian ... or more accurately, of libertarian vs slightly less libertarian.

> authoritarian vs libertarian ... or more accurately, of libertarian vs slightly less libertarian.
That was a unique configuration of US, until during the 20's and 30's, american started copying European Ideologies and institutions, like fascism and communism.

Democracy isn't right or left wing, its a matter of authority which the government exerts and how decision making is done. Just like on the authoritarian side you have facism and communism, but both are authoritarian.

The most similar ones are Absolute and Despot - one can easily be described as the other, but the Absolute monarch is still working in a system; one they're unquestionably at the head of, but still a system nontheless. The despot has much less structure, even more it's a case of their whims being the rule of law. Also it's more characterised by excess.

Feudal monarchy has layers of society and support, there's a distinct hierarchy and power - both legal and in force projection terms - is distributed broadly throughout this structure. However this in and of itself doesn't say how the laws of the land are made.

A parliamentary monarchy is defined by the group of powers that have a say and a vote on laws, and have a monarch in the process - they often have a veto, but in many cases may have a capacity to be opposed. How much say the parliament has compared to the monarch determines how close the monarchy is to being absolute.

This is the only right answer.

>Imagine thinking only your ideology can defend some institutions; by that logic fascism is left since it has labor unions and labor laws

Girondins were originally pro-monarchy.

"The Girondins campaigned for the end of the monarchy (...)"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girondins
Can't you defend your ideology without changing history in your favor?

>Either way though, the founding fathers were the radical leftists of their day, instituting democracy and liberalism on a scale unseen.

That wasn't the goal at the beginning and, considering that voting still had property and other requirements for as much as 2 generations later, it wasn't even a goal afterwards.

The Founding Father rebelled to maintain the government structures the individual colonies already had in place. While geopolitical concerns required a "national" government be formed first through the Articles of Confederation and then through the Constitution, that result wasn't a given even after the Declaration was published.

>>I say the difference was that enlightenment thinking was rational and logical, hence democracy worked because it was being realistic, compared to pie in the sky thinking of other revolutionaries.

Not quite. Like the failed revolutionaries you mentioned, you're focusing on philosophy, ideology, and similar such shit while ignoring the practical and pragmatic side of things. Unlike the many revolutions which followed it, the American Revolution worked because the people who were running things BEFORE the revolution were the same people who ended up running things AFTER the revolution aand not because of their "enlightenment" thinking.

Yes, the AoC and Constitution had various flourishes straight from the Enlightenment, but the government which Americans dealt with day to day wasn't the one formed by those documents. States and localities had been running things for over a century before both were written and kept running things long after too. I know it's hard for people in 2018 to comprehend but, for more than a century after 1787, the only federal employees most people ever encountered worked for the post office.

Like Pastoret?

You seem to imply that post-modern concepts of what "left" is could be applied to a newborn America.
Damn, at the begining of the XX century you would see even anarchists refusing to side with niggers, or communists during the Cold War agains't immigration

Google it faggot.

For the most part it's a question of how much power is centralized in the monarch.

Unless it's a politic heavy game, it's unlikely to ever matter for your players.

>Wikipedia
They did supported a constitutional monarchy until the king decided to flee.

>no source

I don't know, a monarch might be in power through their own force and rule according to only their own whims, but if those whims are fair they might not be a tyrant in any regard other than not allowing rebellion

In that very possible case, he will not be called a despot

I'd more say right/left politics was fairly unique to france until the mid-19th century, and regardless it makes even less sense to apply a french label to americans of the time than it does for us to interpret them by our own standards. Even by the classical right/left labels of France, as others have pointed out being right wing and anti monarchy were not incompatable. Moreover, even though notable socialists had yet to publish their works, the individuals that would have referred to themselves as 'left wing' were still in favor of semi-socialist policies that messed with property rights, something the founding fathers vehemently opposed.

Your own meme source confirm it
>Influenced by liberalism (and the concept of liberal democracy, human rights and Montesquieu's separation of powers), the Girondins initially supported the constitutional monarchy, but after the "Flight to Varennes", when Louis XVI tried to flee Paris in order to start a counter-revolution, the Girondins became mostly republicans, with a royalist minority."

One would try to fit historical figures in modern political term only to create heroes and examples for an ideology that have neither.

A tyrant is a tyrant even if he's a fair ruler.
Tyranny imply in a lack of legitimacy, not necessarily how the state is run.
There used to be many good tyrants in old Greece.

This isn't a matter of being socially conservative, the founding fathers were in favor of strong property rights, free trade, and against gov't interferance in the economy. I don't think they fit the context of 'leftist' in any context, especially modern but even by the standards of the day. See other posts differentiating between right and left wing anti-monarchists.

Only if you consider every ruler a tyrant for some odd reason

There are legitimate rulers, though it depends on the culture.
Most muslims think that only a descendant of Muhammad could rule a caliphate. The catholics think that a monarch needs the Pope's blessing. Mongols used to think that only a direct descendant of Genghis Khan could be their leader.

Well propoganda is propoganda no matter who does it, and certainly we shouldn't force historical figures into a role that they don't fit, but if we must classify historical leaders as right or left it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use modern definitions rather than what they would have considered right or left, if such concepts even existed for them. And if no classification is done at all, then how will people argue on the internet over it?

Continue being a very sad and desperate attempt to look right

A crucial difference between despotism and absolute monarchy is the rule of law. Absolute monarch abides the law, even though he has the power to change it any way he pleases.

If a state is ruled by a absolutist king where he's considered a God, it's a monarchy or a theocracy?

You say that like it can't be BOTH.
Dummy.

Historians would usually consider that a monarchy. Many leaders claimed divinity or divine heritage.

This guy puts it the best, I think. The absolute monarchy is going to have connotations of divinely-ordained or historic blood-claims of heroes or founders. A despot can be from any sort of family or background, and pretty much only relies on might whereas the absolute monarchy may rely on might and other things.

Feudal monarchs have resources and might through vassal system; serfs work lords’ lands and those lords promise soldiers and material goods to their liege. I think its important to note that this was before capitalism, so markets are practically non-existent and most goods are produced for subsistence+giving to their lieges—an important relation that ensures the feudal hierarchy.

>The land that the king directly owns can be less than 10% of a good feudal monarchy.
Unless he's got some strong supporters, having that little personal wealth/power isn't good for stability.

Not to mention the concept of anarchism had already been formalized by William Godwin by this time, which is explicitly beyond property rights and free trade. Liberalism =! the left.

The French Revolution, after executing and delegitimizing its most radical members, proved to be a thoroughly bourgeois one, and so there is no contradiction between the founding fathers supporting the revolution and still being liberal slaveowners

Thanks, that's a good way to think about it.

Despots lack a beuracracy, an Absolutist has complete control of the beuracracy, but it's a vital part of the state.

Left v. Right is a matter of where the dialogue.

Otherwise the continual moving of the dialogue towards the left over history (given we've given more and more people the vote as time has gone on) almost everyone in history who's not Marx would be on the right.

There is a reason why the guy said "See England", because dynasties fell for exactly that reason.

>good feudal monarchy
>see England
That's exactly what I'm contending.

the guy here, feudal monarchies can't be good to begin with.

>Despotism
Exists in a lot of forms,not going to get into that.

>Feudal monarchy
The king is sovereign, but de facto his vassals can do as he pleases. The king is only as powerful as he can get loyal vassals behind him.

>Absolute monarchy
The king is sovereign and has a large extent of control over the state. He's far from totalitarian, still needs support from the royal council* and must respect traditional city rights but the nobility is in greater or lesser degree reigned in.

>Parliamentary monarchy
Either parliament is sovereign, or the king is sovereign but greatly reigned in by parliament. Usually parliament consists of nobles and sometimes landowners, meaning that in a way it's a more evolved form of feudalism.

Basically absolutism is what happens when the king comes out of the feudal system the strongest, and parliamentarism is what happens when the nobility comes out of the feudal system stronger than the king.

*this actually leads to a lot of modern misunderstandings, especially when judging arch-absolutist Louis XIV. He would often end certain decisions or edicts with the phrase "car tel est notre plaisir" (because it is our [royal plural] pleasure). This makes it sound like it's a decision made on his whim, but it actually means "I make this decision with the full support of the royal council". He could of course choose to make certain decisions without their support but that would greatly delegitimize that decision. Kind of like how in certain instances today the French president doesn't need the support of the Assemblée but it helps to have their support anyway.

>even though he has the power to change it any way he pleases
In the instance of Louis XIV this power was very limited. Edicts he could pass as he pleased, certain other legislation only with the support of the royal council, but he could change neither Roman law nor city law or the laws in the lands of his vassals (at least not directly). This is why Montesquieu after Louis XIV's death noticed that the law changed with the post carriage (meaning every patch of France had entirely different laws). Louis XVI post-Bastille but pre-decapitation actually had more influence over the law than Louis XIV (and he used the law to veto any halfway decent idea proposed, fucking moron).

> Mongols used to think that only a direct descendant of Genghis Khan could be their leader.
> only a direct descendent of Ghengis Khan
> only

That's still a sizable pool of potential leaders.

The Despot can be all of the above. What do make him into a despot, is that he has power, but is contested. Generally by a larger organization or group of conspirators.

Feudalism is a structure. A core of it, is that its not unified enough for the King to be absolute.
To be frank: Generally each part of the nobility is basically mini kings, and the grand king might just be a figurehead over whoever is running the show(or at the least making sure the barbarians can't properly invade)
Its contrasted by a Absolute Monarchy, where the King is actually the king, and his vassals are actually his loyal vassals. It might be split further down, but if Ghjengis Khan wants to invade China, he actually invades China, without years of drama and politics to gather the nobility for a crusade.

Parliamentary Monarchy is more a vague statement. By itself, that just means you have a King, and a Parliament. It still implies that there is some form of unified rule, or maybe even a unified law.
But how much of a King the King is, is still a question left unanswered. It also doesn't tell us what the voting classes are, what the requirement of citizenship is, how many citizens the state have. Or if the Parliament even controls the state, because it doesn't really have to.
A despot can still exist in this, in any high ruling class, alongside the king. And again, what makes the despot is that he is contested in the rather harsh attempt at running at state.

An important thing about absolute monarchy is that it is rarely absolute. Despite the king or queen being theoretically infinitely powerful, they can only govern with the support of their advisers, nobles, and bureaucracy. Without that support, or at least tacit acceptence, you king reigns like Emperor Joseph II, who tried to push forward enlightened reforms with 'absolute' power and spent his whole reign dealing with rebellions, power-politics, and general bullshit because he alienated everyone around him.

So like more soft power than hard power?