Leicester's lack of a king doesn't make it any more of a democracy.

[The Roger The Paladin]

I've noticed a trend in people assuming Leicester's lack of a specific sovereign and rule by a "League of Nobles" means that they don't have an upperclass and possibly are more democratic than the other two nations.
Unless there's been some poor wording in translation, here's why that's wrong.

noble |ˈnōbəl|
adjective ( nobler , noblest )
1 belonging to a hereditary class with high social or political status; aristocratic: the Duchess of Kent and other noble ladies.
2 having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals: the promotion of human rights was a noble aspiration.
• of imposing or magnificent size or appearance: entering the building with its noble arches and massive granite columns.
• of excellent or superior quality.
noun
1 (esp. in former times) a person of noble rank or birth.
2 historical a former English gold coin.

It's almost certain, that in the instance, that the noble is the hereditary class. Ergo, this is a nation ruled by an upper class, as of course, one does not hold elections as to who holds noble rank. This is not a democracy, but rather a plutocracy. (Government by the wealthy).

Does that mean it's an evil country? Not necessarily. It's very possible there are good people in those roles, after all, we've seen countless lords who are symbols of virtue through the series. Then again, for every one of them we've had lunatics like Zephiel and Ashnard. In real life it'd qualify as improbable for all those nobles to be benevolent, if not impossible but remember this is fiction. But what it does mean, is the commoner of Leicester is as dependent on someone else as a commoner in either other land.

Of course, this whole theory could be blown out of the water if it were revealed that the nobles were elected officials there, but as I doubt it'll happen.
Mind, of course, I'm not advising against selecting them. I'm fully intending to play through all three routes. I'm just positing some food for thought.

Any discussion on how you think it could be handled, whether you think these are valid points or invalidated by IS' past games... well, you know where to discuss them.

[colossus86]

It's also worth noting that many old Democracies had very limited suffrage. Maybe they are a Democracy in a loose sense, but only people who own a certain amount of land or have amassed a certain amount of wealth are allowed to vote. Could also be a HRE situation were a certain number a families are dubbed "electors" and they're the only ones who ever get to vote.

[Guest EdgyLilPuppy]

Wouldn't that technically make Leicester more of an Oligarchy then? It's a league of Noble families who, from what we are told, govern their land. An oligarchy is a small group of people govern the country, often using their immense wealth or power of influence (Nobles typically have both of these).

Given all that I think Leicester fits the classification of Oligarchy more than a Democracy because there's still a definitive social stratification between Nobles and those of a lower birth.

[The Roger The Paladin]

7 minutes ago, colossus86 said:

It's also worth noting that many old Democracies had very limited suffrage. Maybe they are a Democracy in a loose sense, but only people who own a certain amount of land or have amassed a certain amount of wealth are allowed to vote. Could also be a HRE situation were a certain number a families are dubbed "electors" and they're the only ones who ever get to vote.

I recall at one stage early on, only white male landowners were allowed to vote in the United States, believe it or not, and that is part of what I had in mind when I posted. But the fact a plutocracy is defined as rule by the rich is what makes me think of it as being closer in line with that than a true democracy if these thoughts turn out true. Mind the line between plutocracy and democracy is blurred to the degree I've seen arguments for the modern day US being a plutocracy due to the influence the rich can have on who is even a candidate, so it could just as easily be a country on the verge of true democracy. Or it could be one intending to keep a noble class. Hell, it might play into the story for all I know. It's an interesting can of worms if opened.

[The Roger The Paladin]

20 minutes ago, Guest EdgyLilPuppy said:

Wouldn't that technically make Leicester more of an Oligarchy then? It's a league of Noble families who, from what we are told, govern their land. An oligarchy is a small group of people govern the country, often using their immense wealth or power of influence (Nobles typically have both of these).

Given all that I think Leicester fits the classification of Oligarchy more than a Democracy because there's still a definitive social stratification between Nobles and those of a lower birth.

Hoping the mods will be kind and let me get away with a double post, as this was too interesting to not respond to. Having read the definition of ogliarchy, and a comparison on the difference between an ogliarchy and a plutocracy, it's likely. The difference of course, is that a plutocracy is defined by the rulers being the wealthy, whereas an ogliarchy is defined by that small group of people ruling. Naturally, as you stated nobles tend to have both. In which case it'd be an overlap, definable as both an ogliarchy and a plutocracy. Not uncommon, as wealth is, as you stated a frequent method of controlling a country. Interesting to think there's two terms that'd suit Leicester, either of which are historically unflattering.

[KMT4ever]

Another thing to note is that Claude is the heir of the family that leads the Alliance, which might suggest that the lack of a formal sovereign is more of a technicality like with the Habsburgs in the HRE. His family's power might be less absolute than in the other two nations, but Leicester could easily be a de facto monarchy. After all, we've seen this sort of thing before with Ostia and the Lycian League, where Ostia's marquess is the official leader by right and everyone treats Hector as effectively heir to a throne.

[PrincessAlyson]

I can't wait to see how they go about presenting this country. There's plenty of potential for commoner dissatisfaction, especially if they're still treated as lesser in society. It seems to me like this seems likely: 

6 minutes ago, KMT4ever said:

Another thing to note is that Claude is the heir of the family that leads the Alliance, which might suggest that the lack of a formal sovereign is more of a technicality like with the Habsburgs in the HRE. His family's power might be less absolute than in the other two nations, but Leicester could easily be a de facto monarchy. After all, we've seen this sort of thing before with Ostia and the Lycian League, where Ostia's marquess is the official leader by right and everyone treats Hector as effectively heir to a throne.

The Alliance seems very Lycian League-esque.

[The Roger The Paladin]

16 minutes ago, PrincessAlyson said:

I can't wait to see how they go about presenting this country. There's plenty of potential for commoner dissatisfaction, especially if they're still treated as lesser in society. It seems to me like this seems likely: 

The Alliance seems very Lycian League-esque.

Honestly, this is part of why I made the thread. There's a lot of interest on whether the Church of Seiros is going to be portrayed as a benevolent church or something more sinister. I wanted to approach the angle the politics of the individual countries, even the one that potentially sounds most likely to be a generic good kingdom (due to the noted similarity to the Lycian League) from it's description, has the potential to blindside someone with a different direction. Makes for something to hope for.

[PrincessAlyson]

Yeah, I'd like them to shake things up a bit. For once I'd like the Empire to be good!

[Chopper...]

Honestly, I've tried not to think much about Leicester, because I can't wrap my mind about it being a country ruled by an unconflicted alliance of noble houses. But, as you said, this is fiction.

It's not a democracy, simply because of the fact Claude is an heir to the title of Leader of the Alliance, meaning he won't be voted as the Leader not even by the other nobles, just that he's going to inherit the title. So no suffrage there, limited or otherwise.

Now, there being a leader among them doesn't mean said leader has absolute power over the country; since it's an alliance of noble houses, I'm assuming he's more like the leader of a council, and said council is made up of the other heads of the other noble houses. So, a plutocracy, as you said.

I don't think there's a House of Commons there, it doesn't sound very Fire Emblem. But, again, since it's Fire Emblem, I'm very sure commoners are happy with their government regardless of its type, unless said government is one of the villains.

It would be very interesting if the game showed there were conflicts within this alliance and/or between the alliance and the commoners, but I won't be holding my breath for this 

[Snack]

6 minutes ago, Chopper... said:

Honestly, I've tried not to think much about Leicester, because I can't wrap my mind about it being a country ruled by an unconflicted alliance of noble houses. But, as you said, this is fiction.

It's not a democracy, simply because of the fact Claude is an heir to the title of Leader of the Alliance, meaning he won't be voted as the Leader not even by the other nobles, just that he's going to inherit the title. So no suffrage there, limited or otherwise.

Now, there being a leader among them doesn't mean said leader has absolute power over the country; since it's an alliance of noble houses, I'm assuming he's more like the leader of a council, and said council is made up of the other heads of the other noble houses. So, a plutocracy, as you said.

I don't think there's a House of Commons there, it doesn't sound very Fire Emblem. But, again, since it's Fire Emblem, I'm very sure commoners are happy with their government regardless of its type, unless said government is one of the villains.

It would be very interesting if the game showed there were conflicts within this alliance and/or between the alliance and the commoners, but I won't be holding my breath for this 

I wouldn't call it necessarily unrealistic; the first thing I thought of when Leicester was described was the historical Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which, while it had a monarch, also had a strong parliament which represented the nobility, which was a significantly larger class than in most European countries of the time and had a lot of influence vis a vis the King.

I assume it's more likely that position Claude's family holds is simply hereditary (I'd love it if Intsys put more nuance into the politics of Fodlan than we've seen in recent games, something more like the Tellius duology I suppose, although I have not had the fortune to play those so it's a little harder for me to comment, but I don't really expect it), but it's not impossible it's an elective one that perhaps is informally hereditary. Several countries historically (notably the Scandinavian countries, and evidently this was the practice in Poland as well) had elective monarchies nominally where in practice the throne usually went to the son or otherwise chosen successor of the King, albeit generally because it was common practice for Kings to abdicate and help install them on the throne rather than reigning until death. In the case of Poland the royal family also held the hereditary title of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and there was desire among the electors to preserve the union, which was an incentive to elect the heir to Lithuania the King of Poland as well.

...Sorry, I kinda geeked out and went off on a tangent that isn't all that relevant to the subject at hand there. 

[NekoKnight]

6 hours ago, PrincessAlyson said:

The Alliance seems very Lycian League-esque.

That was my impression too. Lycia seemed like a confederacy with Ostia as its most powerful and leading territory. Hector was the heir to Ostia much like Claude is the heir to the leader of Leicester.

The lack of a formal king doesn't suggest a democracy, but it probably means the other territories have more autonomy in their self governance.

[Dark Holy Elf]

26 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

That was my impression too. Lycia seemed like a confederacy with Ostia as its most powerful and leading territory. Hector was the heir to Ostia much like Claude is the heir to the leader of Leicester.

The lack of a formal king doesn't suggest a democracy, but it probably means the other territories have more autonomy in their self governance.

To fifth(?) the impression, Leicester immediately reminded me of Lycia. Claude's placement as "heir to the house that leads Leicester" strongly suggests it's not a democracy.

[Onestep]

4 hours ago, Chopper... said:

Honestly, I've tried not to think much about Leicester, because I can't wrap my mind about it being a country ruled by an unconflicted alliance of noble houses. But, as you said, this is fiction.

It's not a democracy, simply because of the fact Claude is an heir to the title of Leader of the Alliance, meaning he won't be voted as the Leader not even by the other nobles, just that he's going to inherit the title. So no suffrage there, limited or otherwise.

Now, there being a leader among them doesn't mean said leader has absolute power over the country; since it's an alliance of noble houses, I'm assuming he's more like the leader of a council, and said council is made up of the other heads of the other noble houses. So, a plutocracy, as you said.

I don't think there's a House of Commons there, it doesn't sound very Fire Emblem. But, again, since it's Fire Emblem, I'm very sure commoners are happy with their government regardless of its type, unless said government is one of the villains.

It would be very interesting if the game showed there were conflicts within this alliance and/or between the alliance and the commoners, but I won't be holding my breath for this 

It's quite possible that Claude's leadership has simply been pre-arranged. His family has made concessions to the other noble house's to secure the votes/support needed to ensure Claude's smooth succession. In that sense, he is the Heir to the leader of the alliance, even if said heirship isn't based on familial dynasty.

[Chopper...]

11 minutes ago, Onestep said:

It's quite possible that Claude's leadership has simply been pre-arranged. His family has made concessions to the other noble house's to secure the votes/support needed to ensure Claude's smooth succession. In that sense, he is the Heir to the leader of the alliance, even if said heirship isn't based on familial dynasty.

That's quite possible, although it would still mean there's very little suffrage and none for the commoners. But again, that's just Fire Emblem.

[Vince777]

I would consider a league of nations, despite not yet being anything like modern democracies, to be a step towards something ressembling democracy in it's infancy. Certainly looks more promising in this regard than an empire or a "holy kingdom".

Hence why I'm picking Claude as I would just rather destroy the other two regimes and kill all their heirs. 
 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Vince777

[The Roger The Paladin]

3 hours ago, Vince777 said:

I would consider a league of nations, despite not yet being anything like modern democracies, to be a step towards something ressembling democracy in it's infancy. Certainly looks more promising in this regard than an empire or a "holy kingdom".

Hence why I'm picking Claude as I would just rather destroy the other two regimes and kill all their heirs. 
 

I can't help but feel that's an overly simplified "black and white" worldview to take (which to be fair, this being Fire Emblem is plausibly the direction the game will take), given we don't even know those regimes or especially their heirs have done anything worse than Altea or Pherae (given they pretty much operate under a ruler as well). Would you really condemn someone for being born to the wrong bloodline? Because that's kind of the problem with monarchy in the first place. Deciding value by circumstance of birth instead of merit of one's actions leads to injustice regardless of who it's perpetrated against. Ergo, despite my hesitancy towards any given nation here, the side I consider best (if any) will be reserved until after I've seen all the evidence of all three routes and the actions and supports of those involved.

Furthermore, I must point out, a quick search will show ogliarchies (the trailer did say league of NOBLES, not nations, though arguably it could amount to same) and plutocracies have an even higher tendency toward tyrannical rule than the standard empire. Why? More positions of equal power multiply the chance of corruption holding sway. Indeed, one of the first acts of the democracies of ancient Greece after suffering a time as an ogliarchy was to ensure an ogliarchy could not take place by term limits and lot drawing to decide who could hold office.

As stated before, Fire Emblem isn't known for historical realism, and while your view could prove vindicated, what I'd like you to consider is the possibility that things aren't so right and wrong here. Mind of course, I plan to play all three routes regardless, so I'm not condemning your choice. It may well be objectively right in the long run. I don't know any more than you do. It's just I often find that one must be able to question their own beliefs so when confronted on them they can defend them intelligently.  Because otherwise it's just whoever shouts the loudest or puts on the best show winning a debate, and then everyone loses.

[Etrurian emperor]

Leicester being a democracy was always a bit of a stretch. Like some others I also pretty much immediately thought of Lycia when the country was described. Claude will likely be what Hector was to Lycia though perhaps with a better reputation since students gathered around him during his introduction. 

[ElectiveToast]

5 hours ago, Mad-manakete said:

I can't help but feel that's an overly simplified "black and white" worldview to take (which to be fair, this being Fire Emblem is plausibly the direction the game will take), given we don't even know those regimes or especially their heirs have done anything worse than Altea or Pherae (given they pretty much operate under a ruler as well). Would you really condemn someone for being born to the wrong bloodline? Because that's kind of the problem with monarchy in the first place. Deciding value by circumstance of birth instead of merit of one's actions leads to injustice regardless of who it's perpetrated against. Ergo, despite my hesitancy towards any given nation here, the side I consider best (if any) will be reserved until after I've seen all the evidence of all three routes and the actions and supports of those involved.

Furthermore, I must point out, a quick search will show ogliarchies (the trailer did say league of NOBLES, not nations, though arguably it could amount to same) and plutocracies have an even higher tendency toward tyrannical rule than the standard empire. Why? More positions of equal power multiply the chance of corruption holding sway. Indeed, one of the first acts of the democracies of ancient Greece after suffering a time as an ogliarchy was to ensure an ogliarchy could not take place by term limits and lot drawing to decide who could hold office.

As stated before, Fire Emblem isn't known for historical realism, and while your view could prove vindicated, what I'd like you to consider is the possibility that things aren't so right and wrong here. Mind of course, I plan to play all three routes regardless, so I'm not condemning your choice. It may well be objectively right in the long run. I don't know any more than you do. It's just I often find that one must be able to question their own beliefs so when confronted on them they can defend them intelligently.  Because otherwise it's just whoever shouts the loudest or puts on the best show winning a debate, and then everyone loses.

Given the fact that all three aristocrats are playable, I highly doubt things will be so Black and White. It’s very likely that all three aristocrats will have different convictions but present them to the player in a morally plausible way, and it’s up to the player to take a stand. 

[Guest Edelgard for Smash]

On 2/14/2019 at 1:12 PM, PrincessAlyson said:

Yeah, I'd like them to shake things up a bit. For once I'd like the Empire to be good!

It is likely that only part of the Empire  is good.

I am pretty sure Edelgard is at least, so unless the Empire is planning on assasinating her their future is going to be one of a good Empire.

[Xandest]

1 hour ago, Guest Edelgard for Smash said:

It is likely that only part of the Empire  is good.

I am pretty sure Edelgard is at least, so unless the Empire is planning on assasinating her their future is going to be one of a good Empire.

I think it’s possible she gets usurped, or someone kills her entire family while she’s at the Academy.  An evil relative killing her parents and claiming the empire while she’s away would make for a powerful big bad, and explain why she might have to leave the Avatar to go into hiding.  She mentions having to leave in the first trailer.

 

Regarding Leicester, I think there’s a solid chance they were formed a few generations back in order to better check an Adrestian Empire that was gobbling up independent houses.  I’ve mentioned this in a different thread, but the locations in the Leicester Alliance have some heavy King Lear theming, which I think fits this backstory.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Xandest
Added a little more regarding Edelgard

[Edelgard for Smash]

1 hour ago, Xandest said:

I think it’s possible she gets usurped, or someone kills her entire family while she’s at the Academy.  An evil relative killing her parents and claiming the empire while she’s away would make for a powerful big bad, and explain why she might have to leave the Avatar to go into hiding.  She mentions having to leave in the first trailer.

 

Regarding Leicester, I think there’s a solid chance they were formed a few generations back in order to better check an Adrestian Empire that was gobbling up independent houses.  I’ve mentioned this in a different thread, but the locations in the Leicester Alliance have some heavy King Lear theming, which I think fits this backstory.

But killing her entire family would make her the emperor/empress immediately. 

It is possible that is the reason why she leaves though. 

[Armchair General]

On 02/14/19 at 10:11 AM, Mad-manakete said:

Honestly, this is part of why I made the thread. There's a lot of interest on whether the Church of Seiros is going to be portrayed as a benevolent church or something more sinister. I wanted to approach the angle the politics of the individual countries, even the one that potentially sounds most likely to be a generic good kingdom (due to the noted similarity to the Lycian League) from it's description, has the potential to blindside someone with a different direction. Makes for something to hope for.

If you want to bring up "religion is bad" there's an enemy called "Western Church Soldier" or something in the second trailer.

But the insignia for the Alliance is an indicator that not all of these nobles are the same. Plus, Claude's family could've been the founders of the Alliance; which makes them the hereditary leaders until one of them screws up.

[eclipse]

"A trend of people?"

Both that and the title are no good, because it's assuming an answer to a question that I never asked, while citing something vague.  In other words, it's clickbait, and I despise such tactics.

(and yes, you can have that double post, but try to use the Edit button in the future)

[Guest This Guy]

Maybe it works like the Merchant Republics in Crusader Kings 2.

A bunch of Merchant Houses can run to be Grand Mayor/Doge of the nation, and they have to run that way and the Courtier, Nobles, and Merchants all get to vote (And no on else.).

Claude's family would then mean his Father (Or Mother) was the most recently elected Grand Mayor/Doge. If said parent were to perish, all the Houses get to run for Grand Mayor/Doge.

Or something like that.