Need help understanding place name hierarchy/Scale

[Sarithus]

http://blog.lefigaro.fr/hightech/middle-earth-map.jpg

Hello. Apologies if this isn't in the right section. I need a refresher on place name hierarchy and scale. It's a bit hard to describe so let's look at the Middle Earth map.

Question 1. Compared to Earth, how big would Middle earth be? Is it one continent like Europe? (Arda being the world)
Question 2. Would Rohan/Gondor/any of the medium size fonts be the size of a country?
Question 3. Does Nation, Kingdom and Realm etc pretty much mean the same thing?
Question 4. Is it alright to use 'Country' for medival/fantasy maps? If not, does Land = Country?

I have a lot of obscure questions so hopefully you can understand what I'm trying to ask.

Thanks.

[Azélor]

1- possibly 909,510 sq miles , but I have no idea beyond this 10sec Google search
2- Countries can be as small as the Vatican/Singapore/ or large as Russia, the size is not important. Why use fonts as a unit of comparison?
3-Realm seems to have a broader meaning, it's like a supra entity. Example: Denmark is a realm including Denmark proper, Greenland and Faroe island. A kingdom is the territory ruled by a king. It can be small but usually it tend to be fairly large because it incorporate many vassals. A nation is a term generally confused with other terms and misused because of that. It's when people are loyal toward the country before anything else. It is relatively incompatible with a strong aristocracy because it this case people are loyal to their suzerain instead of the state. There is different form of nationalism and it can be based of different things. The most common is adherence to a common culture/language.

It is hard to say if these title have ever been used with a consistent definition. The titles evolve with time and different people might give different meaning.

4-A country is a sovereign state (unlike some kingdoms that are not always sovereign, example in the Holy Roman Empire). In that sense, country is a generic word like city.

[Redrobes]

I can answer Q1 where in his letters, JRRT said that Arda was created to be an alternate time of our earth. There are maps where people have superimposed current europe on top of middle earth continent. He says about Middle Earth...

http://tolkien.cro.net/mearth/europe.html

So a qualified Yes to Q1. Its about 4000km across the map in the book - give or take a bit.

If your looking to see how large a "State" can be then SeaLand always gives ma chuckle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

[Chick]

The wonderful thing about fantasy mapping is that you don't have to compare it to Earth

You do have to follow natural rules, water downhill, mountains in ranges, etc, but you can make it as big or as small as you want. You can call regions nations, countries, lands, realms, or whatever you want. You can use fonts to show whatever you want them to show -- differences in town sizes, differences in country alliances, differences between terrain types -- and you can use all of font size, type, italic, boldness, and decorations for those as well.

Use your imagination within the bounds of reality

[acrosome]

I assume that English is not your first language, and that these are questions about subtleties in English terminology. Or maybe English is your first language but these archaic terms confuse you.

Q1- As others have said, yes, that's how I understand it. Here's a fun study about the climate of Middle Earth.

Q2- As others have said "country" is a very generic term that can be used to describe any state. Russia is a (very large) country. Lichtenstein is a (very tiny) country. It gets even worse- in American English "country" can mean almost any distinction you like including one of mere terrain. For instance, here in the American west one often refers to "the Powder River country", meaning "all of the land drained by the Powder River." Or one might say "this is hard country," meaning that it is very rugged and diffciult to travel through.

Q3- Gets more persnickety. For many uses yes these can be interchangeable, though as I mentions "nation" is a more modern term. It was, however, used to describe tribal societies, "the Navajo Nation" e.g., meaning "all of those who self-identify as Navajo", and more broadly meaning the lands of all those who self-identify as Navajo. However terms like "kingdom" presuppose the existence of a king, whereas "nation" is a more generic term and usually used to mean a modern nation-state. Few people would, I wager, describe Rome as a "nation", but I may be wrong. Instead Rome was an empire composed of many nations. "Realm" is a somewhat archaic term meaning any territory ruled by a sovereign, but usually reserved for a kingdom.

Empire- ruled by an emperor, who often has kings as vassals
Kingdom- ruled by a king
Principality- ruled by a prince
Mark- a border area traditionally ruled by a marquis
Margravate- another word for mark in other languages, ruled by a margrave
Duchy- ruled by a duke
etc.


Q4- Depends upon how it's used. "Orc country"- meaning "an area infested with orcs"- would work. But just calling something "Gondor Country" would sound awkward. Call it "Gondor."

[Bobemor]

I've always liked the idea of making my planet different to earth. I still have yet to figure out what would actually change if my planet: Rotated at a different axis. Different size. Different mass. Poles switched. Closer/larger moon. Two moons?

On country, it's like City in that is is a very specific word, (that said what word isn't specific or atleast specific in being unspecific ) though used in a somewhat generic manner. A country doesn't need to be soveriegn, but merely have it's own government in a defined area (Nowadays you must be recognised by other countries through diplomatic treaties to gain officiality). A kingdom (A Christian construct so not sure how well it translates to middle earth) is a specific type of country. Country won't be used in a name unless refering to a region that has a similarity (one likely preceeding the name first) which can be political. Presumably both state and region definition were one of the same but states grew and regions didn't.

[Azélor]

I've always liked the idea of making my planet different to earth. I still have yet to figure out what would actually change if my planet: Rotated at a different axis. Different size. Different mass. Poles switched. Closer/larger moon. Two moons?
I've always liked the idea of making my planet different to earth. I still have yet to figure out what would actually change if my planet: Rotated at a different axis. Different size. Different mass. Poles switched. Closer/larger moon. Two moons?

Tilt: With a bigger inclination, it make the differences between the season larger. Winter are colder and darker, even close to the equator. But on the opposite, summers are longer and hotter in northern latitude. It is possible that the monsoon will affect larger areas but with a lesser influence.

With a smaller angle, it's all the opposite. Eventually the difference between the seasons become null. That was just a very quick idea of what it could be like.

---

And lastly I would like to add another thing, the difference between a kingdom and an Empire. Or simply the difference between an Empire and everything else (I just took kingdom as an example). It's probably a christian definition of what is a kingdom...

In a kingdom, the king rule over his subjects. They are considered his people, he has the legitimacy to rule. It might not be 100% correct but we can say that he rules over the people of his nation and over those that he have a claim over. Claims gained in a feudal system. He do not have the legitimacy to submit the other territories.

The Empire: I always write it with a capital letter. There should be only one in theory. In most stories, the narrative only mention ''the Empire''. This is because, unlike others states like kingdoms, the Empire is supposed to be universal. They have the pretension to (or to try to) rule all the civilized world. They will always become multicultural states because universalism imply that they will reign over many foreign culture. They might be convinced of their superiority and think that it is their duty to bring civilization to less advanced neighbour. Eventually, several Empires came to exist at the same time. Just in Europe, in the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, there was 7 states that could be considered Empires : France, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman. I could probably include the Netherlands, Belgium too? They all shared expansionist and imperialistic ideas although the Ottoman where on the defensive.

About the United States: there was an era when they waged war against Spain and gained control over several territories including the Philippines and Hawaii. At that moment, it seemed like the country was going to continue the expansion. They where on their way to become an Empire defacto at least. But the Philippines rebelled and the idea of an American Empire was abandoned in favour of isolationism. It did not happen. The Cold war forced the Americans to intervene but outside of some rare exceptions, they never tried to take direct control of other territories.

Japan still hold the title of Empire officially, but it's just a title.

[Deuce]

The Empire: I always write it with a capital letter. There should be only one in theory. In most stories, the narrative only mention ''the Empire''. This is because, unlike others states like kingdoms, the Empire is supposed to be universal. They have the pretension to (or to try to) rule all the civilized world. They will always become multicultural states because universalism imply that they will reign over many foreign culture. They might be convinced of their superiority and think that it is their duty to bring civilization to less advanced neighbour. Eventually, several Empires came to exist at the same time. Just in Europe, in the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, there was 7 states that could be considered Empires : France, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman. I could probably include the Netherlands, Belgium too? They all shared expansionist and imperialistic ideas although the Ottoman where on the defensive.

As you say. However, this in turn makes it important to distinguish between "Empires" and "empires", since "empire" is habitually used to describe accumulations of territory that don't meet any other definitions but which are nevertheless not technically Empires: Empires being ruled by an Emperor and carrying with it the purported universality (and, at least in Europe prior to about 1800, the implication that that Empire is the legitimate successor of Rome, although the remnants of that fell away when Napoleon and Francis II got into a manhood-measuring contest over their titles).

Among those you mention, for instance, neither the British Empire nor the French Empire were actually Empires in 1900 (nor Italy, Belgium or the Netherlands), and the British Empire never was in its entirety: the title of Emperor held by the British sovereign was Empress/Emperor of India, but that title wasn't applicable to non-Indian territory (hence why the style used was, after Victoria, "King-Emperor"). France had been an Empire from 1852-1870 but thereafter was a republic, even if that republic had an empire attached.

Part of this comes down to sloppy Roman terminology: the Roman emperors accumulated a lot of redundant titles many of which had their origins in the republic and most subsequent Imperial titles originate with them. So the Roman Empire (or imperium) prior to Augustus isn't even technically an anachronistic or incorrect term in the way that, say, "British Empire" is, because imperium was originally a generic term relating to power... but later imperator became exclusive to the ruler and became the root form for "Emperor". Likewise, of course, "Caesar" was a family name which also became a title and that's the one claimed by the Russian and German emperors. Although the Ottomans used Sultan as their primary title they also claimed "Caesar" as a subsidiary title as a successor to the eastern Emperor.

Previous folks have already admirably covered "nation" and so on. I find "realm" is a useful non-anachronistic generic term to use for polities in place of the more modern "state" since with relatively few exceptions it's usually applicable, but it's probably not something that would be used as part of a polity's formal name.

As far as king(dom)s go, there are three usual styles for kings which carry different conotations which may or may not be relevant to mapping depending on various factors. Using France as an example:

King <of France>: This implies that the king is owner of the land and sovereign lord of the kingdom. It's the usual style for absolute rulers.

King <in France>: This indicates that while the king is a king and owns land in a given area in respect of his title he's not the sovereign lord of all that territory and may in fact be almost entirely titular. This style was used by rulers who wanted the dignity of kingship but didn't control all the relevant area, perhaps most notably the early Prussian kings.

King <of the French>: This indicates that the king is lord of the people and may also imply some form of (formal or informal) social contract between the rulers and the people. This was the most common style of kingship before the high Middle Ages (French kings before Philip II were "Kings of the Franks") and was revived in a number of places after the French Revolution (including in France under the Emperors and Louis Philippe). Where you have a king of this style then "nation" would be an appropriate way to describe it, although still probably an anachronistic one unless it's a relatively modern or modern-inspired polity.

Depending on which form of kingship is in play it might affect how the territories are mapped politically. Hungary, for instance, was often mapped showing "Imperial Hungary" under the Ottomans and "Royal Hungary" under the king of Hungary (who was also, somewhat confusingly, Holy Roman Emperor). So if you have a "King in France" the chances are there will be "Royal France" and then "<other> France" depending on the political setup. If the king is "King of the French" then the subnational divisions will probably be more important, and you might want to detail individual duchies, counties etc. within the kingdom more than you would otherwise.

[Wingshaw]

I think in modern usage, 'nation' is usually just a shorthand of 'nation-state', which is confusing, because, as others have mentioned, nation has a meaning all of its own. In archaeological/anthropological terms, it usually denotes an ethnically homogenous community (or one that considers itself to be ethnically homogenous). Hence, the nation of the Navajo, the nation of the Ngunnawal (an Australian aboriginal tribe), the nation of the Saxons.

A state, also a word with multiple meanings, usually implies a political entity that possesses instruments of government: a civil service, an executive, a judiciary. In some contexts, you'll hear people refer to 'the State'. In this situation, they do not mean a political entity with instruments of government, but the instruments of government themselves. State, of course, can also refer to an entity that is lesser than a nation-state (eg. both USA and Australia have self-governing states, that are part of a union in the US--Americans, please correct me if I am wrong--or a federation/commonwealth in Australia; these are similar--but not the same as--say, French departements, British counties, Italian regions etc.).

The nation-state, combining the meanings of both nation and state, is a largely modern construct. The reason is simply that the apparatus of the state is relatively modern (although various forms of it have existed since antiquity). The term nation-state started to be used after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648 ) that ended the Thirty Years War in central Europe. Prior to the development of this form of political entity, the term that would usually be applied to a comparable entity would be based on the status of its ruler: king/kingdom; prince/principality; duke/duchy; senate/republic. For a medieval fantasy map, therefore, naming a political entity by its type of ruler/government is a good rule of thumb.

I think the most accurate use of the word country is to refer to an independent political entity, and therefore it is generally synonymous with nation-state. There are other interpretations for this word also: those mentioned by acrsome; also, in Australia, aborigines may talk about their relationship with Country, which is a somewhat spiritual connection with the land. I think both my example and those from acrsome are mostly cultural. Sticking to the original definition of a country (independent political entity) is safest.

From the above definitions, you can see that Acrsome's point about Rome is correct: Rome was not made up of a single 'nation' (cultural/ethnic community), but had many nations within it; it was, however, a single political entity, and so the term country can probably be applied (but not nation-state, because Rome was not a modern country). Of course, as Acrsome mentions, Rome was an empire, which is a different kind of political entity again to any of the ones described above. An empire is defined in history/archaeology as a country that rules multiple nations. It is often incorrectly applied to a political entity of great size; this is inaccurate, although it is true that empires, by definition, will rarely be physically small entities.

As others have mentioned, you can make these things even more confusing by pointing out the nature of feudal arrangements (i.e. knight L is a vassal of baron M is a vassal of Count N who is a vassal of Duke O who is a vassal of King P) and that such feudal arrangements can become highly tangled (there are historic examples of two kings each being the others' vassal).

A realm is something different again. I'm less familiar with the correct usage here, so I checked Wikipedia, and its definition seems about right to me: "A realm is a community or territory over which a sovereign rules; it is commonly used to describe a kingdom or other monarchical or dynastic state." Note that realm is a term that can apply just as much to the territory of an independent duke (a duchy), baron (barony), or bishop (bishopric), as to a king (kingdom). I have also seen the phrase 'God's realm' in some contexts.

As Azelor and others have pointed out, countries can be small or big. Those countries named by others are good examples of small nation-state: Vatican, Singapore, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Malta. Prior to the unification of Germany, that part of central Europe was composed of hundreds of nation-states, with many types of ruler (kings, dukes, bishops, barons etc.), all self-governing entities, but ones that also formed a larger entity (Holy Roman Empire, with a sometimes elected emperor), and were generally enfeoffed (in a feudal relationship) with one another.

Something else that may be of interest: when I studied history at university, one of my lecturers talked about the borders of countries prior to the Treaty of Westphalia (i.e. the one that 'created' the modern nation-state). A political territory would not have a clear border. You could not go to a place and say "this is where France ends and Belgium begins" (for example); geographic features made it a bit easier ("this side of the river belongs to the king of France; Belgium can have that side"), but generally the 'border' would be a wide stretch of land, going from All French > very French and a little bit Belgian > mostly French but with some more Belgian > mostly Belgian, but with some French > very Belgian and only a little bit French > all Belgian. The Treaty of Westphalia sought to change that by making borders absolute and specific (and from that, modern ideas about nation-states emerged).

THW

[acrosome]

Most importantly for mapping, when you look at a map of Europe nothing is labeled "The Nation of France" or "The Country of France." It's just labeled "France." In the past, if you were being very formal, it might be labeled "The Kingdom of France."

I've always liked the idea of making my planet different to earth. I still have yet to figure out what would actually change if my planet: Rotated at a different axis.

OK, I'll play (within the limits of my amateur understanding)...

Well, the tropics rise as far from the equator as the axial tilt. Earth's axial tilt is ~23.5 degrees, so the tropics are 23.5 degres north and south. So if your planet's axial tilt is 31 degrees, your Tropic of Capricorn is at 31 degrees south and your Tropic of Cancer is at 31 degrees north. Beyond these bounds the sun can never be directly overhead.

A very interesting one would be a world with an axial tilt of 90 degrees.

Different size. Different mass.

These interact in interesting and complex ways. It is possible to have a world much larger than Earth, and even massing more, but with a lower surface gravity because that surface is so far from the center of mass.

Poles switched.

Do you mean retrograde rotation, like Venus? This wouldn't affect much unless you insisted upon mapping it that way. All of the winds and currents would rotate in the opposite direction (e.g. winds would blow counterclockwise out of northern hemisphere high pressure zones instead of clockwise) but really not much difference other than that. Also, cold currents would be on east coasts instead of west, etc.

If you just mean switching the magnetic polarity of the poles- as has and will happen with the Earth- then I think that not much would change other than on a microscopic scale (the deposition of some minerals). And, of course, the implications for compass use.

Closer/larger moon.

There are limits to how close two bodies can be. Most people are familiary with the Roche Limit, but there is also a thing called the Hill Sphere that you have to worry about.

Within those confines, and assuming all else is equal, the closer moon makes larger tides, and cycles them more often because it will have a shorter orbital period.

Likewise, assuming all else is equal a larger (by which I assume that you mean more massive) moon makes larger tides. And if it is large enough it's not a moon- it's a binary planet- and might tidally lock it's partner world if they have been in that relationship long enough. Our Moon is large enough that it might be considered a binary planet, and is working on tidally locking the Earth- our days are getting longer.

Two moons?

Wow. The n-body problem.

Interactions are complex- more complex than most people realize. Within any useful limits these might have to be very small moons (assuming an Earth-sized primary). One really neat idea are moons that exchange orbits regularly. Or, if you want to really blow your mind look up horseshoe orbits.